8/26/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly Toquero filed a Motion for Reconsideration, but this was denied in the Court of Appeals' July 17, 2014 Resolution.[43] Hence, on August 8, 2014, Toquero filed this Petition for Review on Certiorari.[44] In its November 12, 2014 Resolution,[45] this Court required respondents to comment on the Petition and petitioner to submit the proof of service and verified statement of the material date of filing. On January 13, 2015, respondents filed their Comment.[46] On January 26, 2015, petitioner submitted his Affidavit of Service. He subsequently filed an ex-parte Manifestation stating that he would no longer file a reply to the Comment.[47] Petitioner argues that the Court of Appeals erred in upholding the findings of the company-designated physician, Dr. Bacungan, pointing out that her findings were unreliable and without basis. With doubts on these findings, he avers that he was not prohibited from seeking a second or third medical opinion. He claims that a companydesignated physician's findings should not be given evidentiary weight as they tend to be self-serving and biased in favor of the company that pays for the physician's services.[48] Petitioner further points out that the Medical Reports and letters, on which respondents relied in their Position Paper, were never presented as evidence. Supposedly, Dr. Bacungan wrote in a letter that a certain Dr. Epifania Collantes examined him and found his electroencephalography results normal. But these documents were never submitted. [49] Meanwhile, in another Medical Report presented by respondents, a neurologist opined that "[a] complete neurologic examination includes memory and cognitive assessment and should be done before declaring the patient incapacitated."[50] Petitioner alleges these tests were never conducted.[51] Petitioner asserts that these medical opinions highlight the company-designated physician's deficient examination before she declared petitioner fit to return to work as a seafarer. Dr. Bacungan allegedly failed to conduct the recommended complete neurologic examination, and only did a simple electroencephalography, the result of which was never presented as evidence. Hence, the supposed pieces of evidence are mere hearsay, which do not have evidentiary value.[52] Contrary to the company-designated physician's findings, petitioner claims that he suffers from total and permanent disability and is unfit to work. He laments that his brain can easily be damaged due to the hole and fracture in his skull, posing an imminent danger to his life.[53] His unfitness to work, he points out, is even reflected in respondents' pleadings, which stated that petitioner "still experiences physical discomfort due to the head trauma with resultant skull defect. . . headache, dizziness, and discomfort[.]"[54] https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65333 6/22