5/28/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly insisted that petitioner is only entitled to US$12,551 based on the disability assessment of the company-designated doctor. Section 20(B)(3)[15] of the POEA-SEC provides that “[i]f a doctor appointed by the seafarer disagrees with the assessment [of the company-designated doctor], a third doctor may be agreed jointly between the Employer and the seafarer,” and “[t]he third doctor’s decision shall be final and binding on both parties.” In this case, there was no third doctor appointed by both parties whose decision would be binding on the parties. Hence, it is up to the labor tribunal and the courts to evaluate and weigh the merits of the medical reports of the company-designated doctor and the seafarer’s doctor.[16] The Labor Arbiter did not give probative value to the medical report issued by petitioner’s doctor primarily because there was no evidence of tests and examinations conducted to support his medical report. On the other hand, the NLRC ruled that “[t]he findings of [petitioner’s] doctor, who gave him Grade 1 Disability rating is more appropriate and applicable to the injury suffered by [petitioner].”[17] The Court of Appeals gave more credence to the findings of the company-designated doctor, which were supported by multiple tests and examinations on petitioner, compared to the medical report of petitioner’s doctor which was not supported by adequate tests and examinations. We agree with the Court of Appeals’ ruling, giving more credence to the medical findings of the company-designated doctor. Contrary to the ruling of the NLRC, petitioner’s doctor did not categorically give petitioner a grade 1 disability rating which is equivalent to total and permanent disability.[18] Petitioner’s physician found petitioner to be suffering from “PARTIAL PERMANENT DISABILITY,” and “is UNFIT FOR SEADUTY in whatever capacity as seaman.” Aside from this seemingly inconsistent assessment by petitioner’s doctor, there was no evidence submitted of medical procedures, examinations or tests which would support his conclusion that petitioner is unfit for sea duty in whatever capacity as a seaman. In contrast, the companydesignated doctor gave petitioner a final disability grading under the POEA schedule of disabilities of “grade 11- complete immobility of an ankle joint in normal position,” only after petitioner had undergone a series of medical tests and examinations, and physical therapy over a period of six months, during which the company-designated doctor issued periodic medical reports.[19] As the Court aptly stated in Philman Marine Agency, Inc. (now DOHLE-PHILMAN Manning Agency, Inc.) v. Cabanban,[20] “the doctor who have had a personal knowledge of the actual medical condition, having closely, meticulously and regularly monitored and actually treated the seafarer’s illness, is more qualified to assess the seafarer’s disability.”[21] Based on the Disability Report[22] of petitioner’s doctor, it appears that he only conducted a physical examination on petitioner before issuing his final diagnosis and disability rating on petitioner’s condition. Clearly, the findings of the company-designated doctor, who, with his team of specialists which included an orthopedic surgeon and a physical therapist, periodically treated petitioner for months and monitored his condition, deserve greater evidentiary weight than the single medical report of petitioner’s doctor, who appeared to have examined petitioner only once.[23] Petitioner argues that since his treatment lasted for more than 120 days, then his elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/57487 5/13