8/23/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly the burden to prove that the company-designated physician has sufficient justification to extend the period; and 4. If the company-designated physician still fails to give his assessment within the extended period of 240 days, then the seafarer's disability becomes permanent and total, regardless of any justification.[44] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied) Otherwise stated, the company-designated physician is required to issue a final and definite assessment of the seafarer's disability rating within the aforesaid 120/240day period;[45] otherwise, the opinions of the company-designated and the independent physicians are rendered irrelevant because the seafarer is already conclusively presumed to be suffering from a permanent and total disability, and thus, is entitled to the benefits corresponding thereto.[46] To recapitulate, the CA's finding that the company-designated physician gave Pelagio a disability rating is largely based on the July 27, 2010 Medical Report[47] which was seconded by the August 5, 2010 Medical Report,[48] which respondents claim to contain the company-designated physician's final disability grading of Pelagio's condition.[49] However, a more circumspect review of these documents show that these do not constitute the final and definite assessment required by law, considering that: (a) the July 27, 2010 Medical Report expressly provided that the findings therein are only interim;[50] whereas (b) the August 5, 2010 Medical Report only provided for a "potential disability grading."[51] Besides, even assuming arguendo that the August 5, 2010 Medical Report indeed contains Pelagio's final disability grading as posited by respondents, it must be noted that the same was belatedly adduced in evidence when it was attached to respondents' motion for reconsideration before the NLRC, even if it appears to be readily available. Case law instructs that "while strict compliance to technical rules is not required in labor cases, liberal policy should still be pursuant to equitable principles of law. In this regard, belated submission of evidence may be allowed only if the delay in its presentation is sufficiently justified; the evidence adduced is undeniably material to the cause of a party; and the subject evidence should sufficiently prove the allegations sought to be established."[52] Here, respondents did not explain the reasons for their failure to present the August 5, 2010 Medical Report at the earliest opportunity, and it was only after the NLRC rendered an unfavorable decision that the same was presented. Verily, respondents' belated submission thereof without any explanation casts doubt on its credibility especially since it does not appear to be a newly discovered evidence.[53] In the absence of a final and definite disability assessment of the company-designated physician, Pelagio is conclusively presumed to be suffering from a permanent and total disability, and thus, is entitled to the benefits corresponding thereto. In this light, the Court deems it proper to reverse the CA ruling and reinstate that of the NLRC, with modification imposing on the monetary awards due to Pelagio legal interest of six percent (6%) per annum from finality of this Decision until full payment, in accordance elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65096 5/9