5/28/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly to delay treatment for more than one hundred twenty (120) days to avail of the more favorable award of permanent total disability benefits. Non-referral to a third physician, whose decision shall be considered as final and binding, constitutes a breach of the POEA-SEC After establishing the importance of the physician’s assessment of disability claims, the present case should have already been resolved had it not been for the conflicting findings of Dr. Cruz and Dr. Vicaldo. In the settlement of this conflict, we need not provide a lengthy discussion as we have resolved this matter in Philippine Hammonia Ship Agency, Inc. v. Dumadag,[20] citing Section 20(B)(3) of the POEA-SEC: If a doctor appointed by the seafarer disagrees with the assessment, a third doctor may be agreed jointly between the [e]mployer and the seafarer. The third doctor’s decision shall be final and binding on both parties. (Emphasis ours) This referral to a third doctor has been held by this Court to be a mandatory procedure as a consequence of the provision that it is the company-designated doctor whose assessment should prevail. In other words, the company 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 who shall make his or her determination and whose decision is final and binding on the parties. We have followed this rule in a string of cases, among them, Philippine Hammonia,[21] Ayungo v. Beamko Shipmanagement Corp.,[22] Santiago v. Pacbasin Shipmanagement, Inc.,[23] Andrada v. Agemar Manning Agency,[24] and Masangkay v. Trans-Global Maritime Agency, Inc. [25] Thus, at this point, the matter of referral pursuant to the provision of the POEASEC is a settled ruling. Since Rosales signed the POEA-SEC, he bound himself to abide by its conditions throughout his employment. The records show that after obtaining a medical certificate from Dr. Vicaldo classifying his illness as Grade 1 (contrary to Dr. Cruz’ Grade 7 assessment that the company insisted on), Rosales immediately proceeded to secure the services of a counsel and forthwith filed a complaint for disability benefits.[26] By so acting, Rosales proceeded in a manner contrary to the terms of his contract with INC in challenging the company doctor’s assessment; he failed to signify his intent to submit the disputed assessment to a third doctor and to wait for arrangements for the referral of the conflicting assessments of his disability to a third doctor. Significantly, no explanation or reason was ever given for the omission to comply with this mandatory requirement; no indication whatsoever is on record that an earnest elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/57993 6/10