5/28/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly Even granting that the complaint should be given due course, we hold that the company-designated physician’s assessment should prevail over that of the private physician. The company-designated physician had thoroughly examined and treated Rosales from the time of his repatriation until his disability grading was issued, which was from February 20, 2006 until October 10, 2006. In contrast, the private physician only attended to Rosales once, on November 9, 2006.[31] This is not the first time that this Court met this situation. Under these circumstances, the assessment of the company-designated physician is more credible for having been arrived at after months of medical attendance and diagnosis, compared with the assessment of a private physician done in one day on the basis of an examination or existing medical records. We are thus compelled to dismiss the present complaint, as we had similarly done in Philippine Hammonia,[32] to impress upon the public the significance of a binding obligation. This pronouncement shall not only speed up the processing of maritime disability claims and decongest court dockets; more importantly, our ruling would restore faith and confidence in obligations that have voluntarily been entered upon. As an institution tasked to uphold and respect the law, it is our primary duty to ensure faithful compliance with the law whether the dispute affects strictly private interests or one imbued with public interest. We shall not hesitate to dismiss a petition wrongfully filed, or to hold any persons liable for its malicious initiation. WHEREFORE, premises considered, we hereby GRANT the petition and SET ASIDE the assailed decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals. The complaint is hereby DISMISSED. SO ORDERED. Carpio, (Chairperson), Del Castillo, Mendoza, and Leonen, JJ., concur. [1] Through a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, rollo, pp. 33-53. The appealed decision was penned by Associate Justice Manuel M. Barrios and concurred in by Associate Justices Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr. and Ramon R. Garcia, rollo, pp. 15-28. [2] Rollo, p. 62. [3] Id. at 62-63. [4] Id. at 63. [5] Id. [6] Id. elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/57993 8/10