4/29/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly Employment Contract, like that involved in the present case. In said case, the Court applied the 2000 Circular in holding that while it is the companydesignated physician who must declare that the seaman suffered permanent disability during employment, it does not deprive the seafarer of his right to seek a second opinion which can then be used by the labor tribunals in awarding disability claims.[24] Verily, in the cited case of Seagull Maritime Corporation v. Dee,[25] this Court held that nowhere in the case of German Marine Agencies, Inc. v NLRC[26] was it held that the company-designated physician’s assessment of the nature and extent of a seaman's disability is final and conclusive on the employer company and the seafarer-claimant. While it is the company-designated physician who must declare that the seaman suffered a permanent disability during employment, it does not deprive the seafarer of his right to seek a second opinion.[27] The case of Maunlad Transport, Inc. v. Manigo, Jr.[28] is also worthy of note. In the said case, the Court reiterated the prerogative of a seafarer to request for a second opinion with the qualification that the physician’s report shall still be evaluated according to its inherent merit for the Court’s consideration, to wit: All told, the rule is that under Section 20-B (3) of the 1996 POEA-SEC, it is mandatory for a claimant to be examined by a company-designated physician within three days from his repatriation. The unexplained omission of this requirement will bar the filing of a claim for disability benefits. However, in submitting himself to examination by the company-designated physician, a claimant does not automatically bind himself to the medical report issued by the company-designated physician; neither are the labor tribunals and the courts bound by said medical report. Its inherent merit will be weighed and duly considered. Moreover, the claimant may dispute the medical report issued by the company-designated physician by seasonably consulting another physician. The medical report issued by said physician will also be evaluated by the labor tribunal and the court based on its inherent merits.[29] In the recent case of Daniel M. Ison v. Crewserve, Inc., et al.,[30] although ruling against the claimant therein, the Court upheld the above-cited view and evaluated the findings of the seafarer’s doctors vis-à-vis the findings of the company-designated physician. A seafarer is, thus, not precluded from consulting a physician of his choice. Consequently, the findings of petitioner’s own physician can be the basis in determining whether he is entitled to his disability claims. Verily, the courts should be vigilant in their time-honored duty to protect labor, especially in cases of disability or ailment. When applied to Filipino seamen, the perilous nature of their work is considered in determining the proper benefits to be awarded. These benefits, at the very least, should approximate the risks they brave on elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/55611 5/11