6/5/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly disability benefits filed by private respondent Julius R. Tagalog is DISMISSED.[5] Applying the case of Vergara v. Hammonia Maritime Services, Inc., et al.,[6] the Court of Appeals held that a temporary total disability becomes permanent only when so declared by the company-designated physician within the period he is allowed to do so, or upon the expiration of the maximum 240-day medical treatment period without a declaration of either fitness to work or the existence of a permanent disability. The appellate court found that only 102 days have passed from the time petitioner signed off from his vessel on 21 January 2006 up to the time the company-designated physician made a pronouncement on 3 May 2006 that he was fit to resume sea duties. And even if the computation made by the NLRC were to be adopted, the appellate court ruled that the maximum 240-day treatment period has not yet expired when the company-designated physician made a pronouncement on petitioner’s fitness to return to work. On 12 April 2010, the Court of Appeals denied petitioners’ motion for reconsideration. Hence, this petition. Petitioner raises the following grounds for the allowance of the petition: 1. Whether or not the Honorable Court of Appeals erred in substituting the findings of facts of the Labor Arbiter and NLRC in affirming the assessment of fit to work issued by the company-designated physician even if petitioner was permanently unfit for further sea service regardless of the number of days he was disabled. 2. Whether or not the Honorable Court erred in dismissing the award of attorney’s fees and damages.[7] Petitioner insists that it is not the duration or period for the issuance of a medical certificate that matters in disability proceedings but the incapacity of the worker to earn wages in whatever capacity regardless of the number of days he was disabled. Petitioner avers that the medical certificates issued by the company-designated physician are palpably self-serving and biased in favor of the company who sought their services and therefore should not be given evidentiary weight and value. Petitioner claims that his choice physician’s assessment was in harmony with the Department of Health (DOH) Administrative Order No. 176, series of 2000, on the ground that petitioner could no longer qualify with the minimum in-service eyesight standards thereof, thus, he is permanently unfit for work at sea. Petitioner suggests that the entirety of his medical records, history and improvement to treatment should be the paramount consideration in awarding disability benefits because the alleged fitness to work cannot defeat the actual medical condition of petitioner on the ground that he failed to earn wages for the past four years and six months already. Petitioner reiterates his entitlement to damages and attorney’s fees. Respondents defend the decision of the appellate court in affirming the findings of the company-designated physician because it is the latter who is mandated to determine the fitness and disability of the seafarer. In this case, respondents allege that sufficient elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/60647 3/10