8/27/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly period. Otherwise, the law grants the seafarer the relief of permanent total disability benefits due to such non-compliance. If this significant act is performed and an extension was duly made, the obligation of the company-designated physician to issue a final assessment is nevertheless retained, albeit in this instance may be discharged within the extended period of not exceeding 240 days reckoned from the seafarer's repatriation. The consequence for non-compliance within the extended period of the required assessment is likewise the ipso jure grant to the seafarer of permanent and total disability benefits, regardless of any justification. (Emphasis supplied) Here, the records are bereft of any showing that the company-designated physician gave petitioner a final and definite disability rating within the 120/240 days prescribed. Petitioner was repatriated on February 13, 2015. He was referred to the companydesignated physician who gave him medical attention and treatment up to June 26, 2015 or for more than 120 days from his repatriation. Since petitioner in fact required further treatment and medical attention beyond the 120-day period, his total and temporary disability was deemed extended. The company-designated physician then had until two hundred forty (240) days from repatriation within which to issue his final assessment of disability on petitioner. As it was, the company-designated physician failed to do so. The letter[36] issued by the company-designated physician on July 28, 2015 is hardly the final assessment required by law. It merely stated that petitioner underwent thorough treatment from February 27, 2015 to June 4, 2015 due to his Osteoarthritis. The same holds true for his Medical Report dated June 25, 2015, merely noting Dr. Chuasuan, Jr.'s "comments" on petitioner's medical condition, sans any definite, nay final disability rating. None of the letters and reports issued by the company-designated physician and by Dr. Chuasuan, Jr. can be treated as definite and conclusive because petitioner remains incapacitated beyond the 240-day period. He still feels recurrent pain in his knee which renders him incapable to perform his usual task as team head waiter[37] in any vessel. Too, there is no showing that he had been re-employed by respondents or in any vessel for that matter. Indeed, petitioner's continued unemployment until this very day clearly indicate his total and permanent disability. Verily, by operation of law, petitioner's disability became total and permanent for which he is entitled to the corresponding benefits.[38] Considering that petitioner was forced to litigate and incur expenses to protect his rights under the law, the award often per cent (10%) attorney's fees is in order.[39] Lastly, pursuant to C.F. Sharp Crew Management, Inc. v. Santos[40] and Nacar v. Gallery Frames,[41] the Court imposes on the monetary awards legal interest at six percent (6%) per annum from the date of finality of this decision until full payment. ACCORDINGLY, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated August 24, 2017 and https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65546 10/13