6/7/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly be more hopeful in their evaluation than that of a physician of the seafarer's choice. If We uphold the more positive outlook of the company-designated physician, the seaman would inevitably be denied of his right to disability compensation under Our labor laws and the parties' agreement. We should be cognizant of the social justice principle upon which Our labor laws are founded - that when there is doubt, the same should be resolved in favor of the working man x x x.[35] However, the Court of Appeals stated that the issue of whether or not the injury of petitioner is total or partial is another matter as the NLRC failed to state the factual basis in declaring petitioner totally disabled. The findings of Dr. Runas was silent with respect to the disability grade of petitioner. It noted that petitioner's injury is not among those listed under Section 32 of the POEA SEC with Grade 1 impediment, which is considered as total disability.[36] Moreover, the Court of Appeals said that the Labor Arbiter's reliance on Article 192 of the Labor Code, which provides that temporary total disability lasting continuously for more than 120 days shall be deemed total and permanent, cannot be applied in this case. Prevailing jurisprudence[37] clarifies that when the seafarer who is suffering from an illness or injury needs further treatment in order to fully recover, the period of 120 days may be extended up to 240 days. It is only when the company-designated physician fails to arrive at a definite assessment of the seafarer's fitness to work or disability within the 240-day period that the seafarer shall be deemed permanently and totally disabled.[38] The Court of Appeals held that in this case, the legal presumption of permanent total disability does not operate in favor of petitioner as he filed his complaint only on September 13, 2012 following his repatriation on March 19, 2012. Petitioner filed his complaint [179] days from the date of his repatriation or before the lapse of the 240day period upon which Dr. Tay may make her final assessment of petitioner's medical condition.[39] For these reasons, the Court of Appeals adopted the disability impediment of Grade 8 given by Dr. Tay. Grade 8 has an equivalent rating of 33.59% under the Schedule of Disability provided in Section 32 of the POEA SEC.[40] The Court of Appeals held that it was undisputed that the vessel of petitioner was covered by the ITF TCC Collective Agreement.[41] Under Section 24.3 of the Agreement, the rate of compensation for total permanent disability of an Ordinary Seaman like petitioner is USS90,882.00, and not US$156,816, which is the rate under the ITF Standard Contract,[42] as erroneously applied by the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC. The Court of Appeals computed petitioner's disability compensation in this manner: 33.59% (degree of disability) x US$90,882 = US$30,527.26.[43] The dispositive portion of the Decision of the Court of Appeals reads: elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/63243 7/17