6/5/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly rule in the instant case, wherein the Court held that an assessment of a private doctor consulted by the claimant six (6) months after he was declared “fit to work” by the company-designated physician in Cadornigara and seven (7) to eight (8) months in Sarocam, has no evidentiary value, for the claimant’s health condition may have drastically changed in the interregnum. Following the foregoing analyses in Cadornigara and Sarocam, the necessary conclusion in this case would have to be that Dr. Alegre’s (the company physician) diagnosis and recommendation has more evidentiary weight and should therefore prevail over that of Dr. Garduce. In the absence of bad faith, Dr. Alegre’s findings were binding on the petitioner, such findings being based on the petitioner’s extensive and actual medical history and treatment. Moreover, the records lack competent showing of the extent of the medical treatment that the private doctor gave to the petitioner. In contrast, Dr. Alegre’s extensive medical treatment that enabled him to make a final diagnosis on the degree of the petitioner’s disability was amply demonstrated. Thus, between the certification issued by the company[-]designated physician and the certification issued by the private doctor, We would lend more credence to the certification issued by the company[-]designated physician because it was done in the regular performance of his duties as company physician and who consistently examined complainant’s health condition. We cannot simply brush aside said certification in the absence of solid proof that it was issued with grave abuse of authority of the company physician. This was what respondent NLRC precisely considered in coming out with its reversal decision. In doing so, it may not be said that it gravely abused its discretion. While the Court may agree with the petitioner that the [POEA SEC] for Seamen is designed primarily for the protection and benefit of Filipino seamen in the pursuit of the employment on board ocean-going vessels and its provisions must, therefore be construed and applied fairly, reasonably and liberally in their favor, We must also emphasize that the constitutional policy to provide full protection to labor is not meant to be a sword to oppress employers, nor a means to prevent the court from sustaining the employer when it is in the right.[25] (Citations omitted) Issues This Court is now called upon to resolve the issues of whether or not the CA and the NLRC erred in not considering the following: (a) provisions of the CBA which provide full compensation for loss of profession regardless of the degree of disability;[26] and elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/58964 5/18