6/5/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly 19, 2012,[11] but was on continued treatment as an out-patient[12] from March 22[13] to September 21, 2012.[14] On September 21, 2012, petitioner returned to Dr. Cruz for his regular checkup. After medical evaluation, the latter issued a Medical Report[15] of even date declaring petitioner "fit to work."[16] Dissatisfied, petitioner consulted an independent doctor, Dr. Cesar H. Garcia (Dr. Garcia), who issued an Orthopedic Surgeon's Report[17] dated October 2, 2012, opining, instead, that he was unfit to work as a seaman as of that time. Meanwhile, or on July 20, 2012, while still undergoing treatment with the companydesignated physician, Dr. Cruz, and without having consulted the independent doctor, Dr. Garcia, petitioner filed a complaint[18] against respondents Dohle Manning, Dohle Seafront, and the latter's president, Mayronilo B. Padiz (Padiz; collectively, respondents), seeking to recover permanent total disability benefits pursuant to the unsigned International Transport Workers' Federation Standard Collective Agreement[19] (ITF CBA) dated January 1, 2012, as well as compensatory, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney's fees before the NLRC, National Capital Region (NCR), docketed as NLRC-NCR-OFW-Case No. (M) 07-11019-12. In his Position Paper[20] dated October 5, 2012, petitioner claimed, inter alia, that he is entitled to permanent total disability benefits, considering that: (a) he has remained permanently unfit to perform further sea service despite major surgery and further treatment; (b) his permanent total unfitness to work was duly certified by his chosen physician, Dr. Garcia, whose certification prevails over the palpably self-serving and biased assessment of the company-designated physicians; and (c) his medical condition falls under the Permanent Medical Unfitness Clause[21] of the ITF CBA that entitles him to 100% compensation.[22] For their part, respondents countered[23] that the fit to work findings of the companydesignated physicians must prevail over that of petitioner's independent doctor, considering that: (a) they were the ones who continuously treated and monitored petitioner's medical condition;[24] and (b) petitioner failed to comply with the agreed procedure under the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration-Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC) on the joint appointment by the parties of a third doctor whose findings shall be considered as final with respect to the degree of his disability.[25] Respondents further averred that petitioner has no cause of action against them, and the filing of the disability claim was premature, since he was still undergoing medical treatment within the allowable 240-day period at the time of the filing of the complaint.[26] The Labor Arbiter's Ruling In a Decision[27] dated November 27, 2012, the Labor Arbiter (LA) ordered respondents, jointly and severally, to pay petitioner US$156,816.00 or its peso equivalent as permanent total disability benefits, plus ten percent (10%) thereof as elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/61727 2/13