8/26/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly The CA ruled that respondent is entitled to permanent and total disability benefits because the company-designated physicians failed to arrive at a timely and definite assessment of respondent's fitness to work or permanent disability.[18] The CA found that respondent was repatriated on August 4, 2012 and in a Medical Report dated August 29, 2012, the company-designated physicians diagnosed respondent with epidydimitis and solid mass in his right testicle and recommended for radical orchiectomy.[19] The CA found that respondent was admitted at the Manila Doctors Hospital on October 18, 2012, radical orchiectomy was performed on October 19, 2012, and he was discharged from the hospital on October 23, 2012. Thereafter, the company-designated physicians did not arrive at an assessment of respondent's fitness to work or permanent disability.[20] The CA therefore ruled that respondent is entitled to permanent and total disability benefits for the company-designated physicians' failure to declare a definite assessment of respondent's fitness to work or permanent disability during the 120 or 240- day periods.[21] Further, the CA affirmed the award of sickness allowance and attorney's fees.[22] Petitioner moved for reconsideration but the CA denied this. Hence, this Petition. Issues The Petition raises the following issues: I. THE [CA] SERIOUSLY ERRED IN RULING THAT RESPONDENT IS ENTITLED TO PERMANENT TOTAL DISABILITY BENEFITS PURSUANT TO SECTION 32 OF THE POEA-SEC; AND II. THE [CA] GRAVELY ERRED IN RULING THAT RESPONDENT IS ENTITLED TO ATTORNEY'S FEES.[23] The Court's Ruling The Petition is denied. Respondent is entitled to permanent and total disability benefits and attorney's fees. Petitioners argue that respondent's illness was not work-related as he only experienced his symptoms 10 days after joining the crew's vessel[24] and that he failed to present substantial evidence to prove that his illness was work-related.[25] This is baseless in light of the undisputed fact that the company-designated physicians failed to arrive at a final and definite assessment of respondent's fitness to work or the degree of his disability. In Elburg Shipmanagement Phils., Inc. v. Quiogue, Jr.[26] (Elburg), the Court summarized the rules when a seafarer claims total and permanent disability benefits, as follows: https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65293 4/8