6/5/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly Hence, this petition. In their petition, petitioners insist that Gepanaga is not entitled to permanent disability benefits, since he was declared “fit to work” by the company after receiving treatment from the day he was repatriated on December 3, 2008 to March 4, 2009 for a total of 91 days. Citing the Court’s ruling in Vergara v. Hammonia Maritime Services, Inc.[19] (Vergara), the petitioners argue that Gepanaga’s alleged inability to work after the lapse of 120 days from the time he suffered his injury does not automatically entitle him to the grant of permanent and total disability benefits.[20] The petitioners also insist that they are not liable to pay attorney’s fees since their denial of Gepanaga’s claims was done in good faith and based on valid grounds. They point to the fact that almost immediately upon the repatriation of the respondent, they referred him to the company-designated physician for examination and treatment. They add that they also shouldered Gepanaga’s medical expenses without raising any issue. [21] Position of the Respondent Maintaining the correctness of the decision of the CA, Gepanaga asserts that he was entitled to claim for permanent total disability benefits because his personal physician established that he was not fit to work. He claims that the award of attorney’s fees was warranted as he was compelled to litigate to enforce his claims. The Court’s Ruling The evidentiary records favor the petitioners. In order to provide a clear-cut set of rules in resolving the ubiquitous conflict between the seafarer and his employer for claims of permanent disability benefits, the Court in Vergara, stated that the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE), through the POEA, had simplified the determination of liability for work-related death, illness or injury in the case of Filipino seamen working in foreign ocean-going vessels. Every seaman and vessel owner (directly or represented by a local manning agency) are required to execute the POEA-SEC as a condition sine qua non prior to the deployment of the seaman for overseas work. The POEA-SEC is supplemented by the CBA between the owner of the vessel and the covered seaman. In this case, the parties entered into a contract of employment in accordance with the POEA-SEC. They also agreed to be bound by the CBA. Thus, in resolving whether Gepanaga is entitled to disability compensation, the Court will be guided by the procedures laid down in the POEA-SEC and the CBA. Section 20(B)(3) of the POEA-SEC provides: elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/59123 4/11