8/27/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly Citing jurisprudence, respondents further claim that the company-designated doctor is in the best position to determine the seafarer's condition.[53] Thus, the assessment of Dr. Cruz-Balbon, the company-designated physician, is more credible.[54] Moreover, respondents argue that petitioner failed to timely object to his disability assessment and refer his condition to a third doctor per the POEA Standard Employment Contract. His failure, according to respondents, constitutes a breach, which overturns any consideration to favor a medical certificate that appears to be secured only to claim disability benefits.[55] Petitioner's failure, as well as his premature filing of the Complaint, cost him his right to claim compensation. Respondents emphasize that the referral to a third doctor has been held mandatory. Hence, an employer "can insist on its disability rating even against a contrary opinion by another doctor, unless the seafarer expresses his disagreement by asking for the referral to a third doctor[.]"[56] Furthermore, respondents disagree with petitioner's contention that the lapse of 120 or 240 days bolstered his unfitness to work. They point out that the POEA Standard Employment Contract clearly provides that the disability shall not be measured by the number of days a seafarer is under treatment or the number of days when sickness allowance is paid. Instead, it should be based solely on the disability grading provided under his contract.[57] The issues for this Court's resolution are: First, whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in making its own factual determination in the special civil action for certiorari; Second, whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that petitioner Jessie C. Esteva is not entitled to total disability benefits. Subsumed under this issue is whether or not referral to a third doctor is mandatory; Third, whether or not petitioner is entitled to the award of sickness allowance, medical expenses, and transportation expenses; and Finally, whether or not petitioner is entitled to moral and exemplary damages and attorney's fees. I Petitioner assails the Court of Appeals Decision in substituting its own findings of facts with the labor tribunals' findings. He asserts that a writ of certiorari may not be used to correct a lower tribunal's evaluation of the facts and evidence. In a special civil action for certiorari, the Court of Appeals has ample authority to conduct its own factual determination when it finds that there was grave abuse of discretion.[58] In Plastimer Industrial Corporation v. Gopo:[59] In a special civil action for certiorari, the Court of Appeals has ample authority to make its own factual determination. Thus, the Court of Appeals can grant a petition for certiorari when it finds that the NLRC committed https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65396 6/20