11/9/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly leading up to the filing of the complaint, especially as it is more in line with the strange and belated filing of the disability claim. The petitioner's refusal to cooperate, his decision not to mention to the respondents that he was questioning the latter's medical findings and seeking recourse with his own physician, and his belated filing of the complaint which was actuated almost a full year after the medical checkup with the respondents prompt the Court to find that there is a palpable lack of good faith in the petitioner's handling of the claim, especially as the same contravenes the POEA SEC. In Splash Philippines, Inc., et al. v. Ruizo,[40] the Court denied disability benefits to a seafarer who refused to return to the company for further treatment, refused to return to work, and instead filed a complaint, in contravention of the POEA SEC: Ruizo's non-compliance with his obligation under the POEA-SEC is aggravated by the fact that while he was still undergoing treatment under the care of Dr. Cruz, he filed the present complaint on May 26, 2006. Moreover, after he failed to return for further ESWL and without informing the agency or Dr. Cruz, he consulted Dr. Vicaldo who examined him only for a day or on May 7, 2007, certified him unfit to work, and gave him a disability rating of Impediment Grade VII (41.8%). This aspect of the case bolsters the LA's conclusion that Ruizo was merely making excuses for his failure to report to Dr. Cruz and had become indifferent to treatment as he was determined to claim and obtain disability benefits from the petitioners. It also lends credence to the petitioners' submission that he abandoned his treatment under Dr. Cruz. Worse, it validates the LA's opinion that his inability to work and the persistence of his kidney ailment could be attributed to his own willful refusal to undergo treatment. Under the POEASEC, such a refusal negates the payment of disability benefits.[41] In actuality, the petitioner's act of refusing to cooperate not only makes his claim questionable, but also vitiates the validity of his own assertions as well as that of his own doctor that his disability is such to entitle him to the corresponding benefits. Since the petitioner did not inform the respondents that he was contesting their findings, and did not even draw their attention to the fact that he had in hand conflicting findings, the statutory recourse of looking for a third physician to bind the parties was never effected, an omission that the Court finds as prejudicial to the petitioner. The law dictates that if there is a disparity in the medical findings of the parties, a possible answer to the stalemate is through the seeking of recourse to a third physician agreed upon by both parties. Under Section 20(A)(3) of the 2010 POEA SEC, if a doctor appointed by the seafarer disagrees with the assessment, a third doctor may be agreed jointly between the Employer and the seafarer, whose decision shall be final and binding on both parties.[42] This is important as an employer/agency may insist on its own disability assessment even against a different opinion by another doctor, unless the seafarer signifies his or her intent to submit the disputed assessment to a third physician.[43] Crucially, the duty to secure the opinion of a third doctor belongs to the employee asking for disability benefits, and he or she must actively or expressly request for it.[44] https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65376 8/15