6/7/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly referral provision in the contract. Stated otherwise, the company can insist on its disability rating even against the contrary opinion by another doctor, unless the seafarer expresses his disagreement by asking for a referral to a third doctor who shall make his or her determination and whose decision shall be final and binding on the parties.[24] According to the respondents, petitioner's second medical opinion only came to their knowledge during one of the scheduled mandatory conferences before the VA.[25] Citing Philippine Hammonia Ship Agency, Inc. v. Dumadag (Hammonia),[26] Silagan v. Southfield Agencies, Inc.,[27] and TSM Shipping Phils., Inc. v. Patiño,[28] they argue that petitioner's failure to communicate his separate medical certification prior to the filing of the complaint not only constitutes a breach of his contractual obligations under the POEA-SEC, but also renders the complaint premature and is a ground for the dismissal of his claim for disability benefits. Respondents' reliance on the above-stated cases is misplaced. In Hammonia, the seafarer-claimant utterly disregarded the third-doctor provision and filed a claim for permanent total disability benefits right after securing the opinion of four doctors of his choosing. It is against this factual backdrop that We declared that the seafarerclaimant's filing of the complaint without having consulted a third doctor constitutes a breach of his duty under the POEA-SEC. In the same vein, the seafarer-claimants in Silagan and TSM Shipping never informed their employers of their intent to consult a third doctor after consulting a second doctor. In stark contrast, respondents do not deny receiving petitioner's October 16, 2015 letter despite their insistence that he failed to activate the third doctor provision. In fact, respondents repeatedly insisted that the letter was not meant to dispute the company-designated doctor's assessment, but rather to inform them that petitioner needed continued medical assistance. On the assumption that petitioner indeed "belatedly" informed respondents of the opinion of his second doctor and his intent to refer his case to a third doctor, the fact remains that they have been notified of such intent. In Formerly INC Shipmanagement Incorporated v. Rosales,[29] We reiterated Our earlier pronouncement in Bahia Shipping Services, Inc. v. Constantino[30] that when the seafarer challenges the company doctor's assessment through the assessment made by his own doctor, the seafarer shall so signify and the company thereafter carries the burden of activating the third doctor provision: x x x Constantino bears the burden of positive action to prove that his doctor's findings are correct, as well as the burden to notify the company that a contrary finding had been made by his own physician. Upon such notification, the company must itself respond by setting into motion the process of choosing a third doctor who, as the POEA SEC provides, can rule with finality on the disputed medical situation. (Emphasis supplied) The POEA-SEC does not require a specific period within which the parties may seek the opinion of a third doctor, and they may do so even during the mandatory conference before the labor tribunals. Accordingly, upon being notified of petitioner's intent to dispute the company doctors' findings, whether prior or during the mandatory elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/64175 7/12