6/5/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly opinion of [the petitioner’s] private physician with such nil significance. Attendant facts not only render an inherent weakness in [the petitioner’s] evidence. They fail to overcome the corresponding probative weight and credence being ascribed to the declaration of the company-designated physician which had been issued pursuant to the conditions stated in the [POEA SEC]. Thusly, and as ruled in the case of Cadornigara v. Amethyst Shipping Co., Inc., et al., G.R. No. 158073, November 23, 2007, while the certification of the company physician may be contested, the seafarer must indicate facts or evidence on record to contradict such finding. x x x [The petitioner] having entirely missed pointing to any circumstance that would have reasonably established fraud or misrepresentation on the part of the company-designated physician, We are therefore without any other recourse but to render due adherence to his findings and conclusions.[22] On February 13, 2009, the NLRC denied the respondents’ motion for reconsideration. [23] Ruling of the CA The respondents thereafter filed a Petition for Certiorari,[24] which the CA dismissed through the herein assailed decision and resolution. The CA declared that: The Court notes that Section 20(B) of the employment contract states that it is the company-designated physician who determines a seafarer’s fitness to work or his degree of disability. Nonetheless, a claimant may dispute the company-designated physician’s report by seasonably consulting another doctor. In such a case, the medical report issued by the latter shall be evaluated by the labor tribunal and the court, based on its inherent merit. It is noted that petitioner took four (4) months before disputing the finding of Dr. Alegre by consulting a second opinion of his physician of choice, whose only consultation with him is recorded by a handwritten diagnosis dated June 6, 2007, a day before he filed a complaint for disability benefits. x x x. xxxx As the Supreme Court observed in Sarocam v. Interorient Maritime Ent. Inc., it makes no sense to compare the certification of a companydesignated physician with that of an employee-appointed physician if the former is dated seven to eight months earlier than the latter -- there would be no basis for comparison at all. In Maunlad Transport, Inc. vs. Manigo, where the Supreme Court took note of the doctrines laid down in Cadornigara v. NLRC and Sarocam v. Interorient Maritime Ent., Inc., which We hold to be the more applicable elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/58964 4/18