6/5/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly outpatient procedure - on July 6, 2009, because he did not have the resources to pay for the more expensive bypass surgery. On July 6, 2009, the company-designated physician issued a Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory Report recommending the administration of dual antiplatelets; he likewise stated that the medical management of respondent's condition should be "maximized." Thereafter, it appears mat respondent's treatment was discontinued, and no assessment of respondent's fitness to work or disability was made. Indeed, up to this stage of the proceedings, there is no such declaration of fitness or disability issued by the company-designated physician. Petitioners argue that there is a March 27, 2009 Medical Report issued by the companydesignated physician which declared that respondent's condition was not workconnected and not compensable. However, the record of the case is bereft of such report. On the contrary, the last medical report issued by the company-designated physician on July 6, 2009 indicates that respondent's condition has not been resolved; he has not been cured, and instead, the attending physician recommended that medical management of respondent's condition should be maximized, meaning that his treatment must continue and the medical care to be given to him must be augmented. Respondent's condition remains unresolved even up to this day, and petitioners did not renew his contract; nor was respondent able to work for other employers on account of his condition. Thus, applying the doctrine enunciated in Magsaysay Mitsui OSK Marine, Inc. v. Bengson[52] and Alpha Ship Management Corporation v. Cab[53] - that an employee's disability becomes permanent and total when so declared by the companydesignated physician, or, in case of absence of such a declaration either of fitness or permanent total disability, upon the lapse of the statutory 120- or 240-day treatment period, while the employee's disability continues and he is unable to engage in gainful employment during such period, and the company-designated physician fails to arrive at a definite assessment of the employee's fitness or disability - respondent is thus deemed totally and permanently disabled and entitled to the corresponding benefit under the POEA SEC in the amount US$60,000.00. The assessment of Dr. Vicaldo, an independent physician consulted by respondent, is irrelevant in this case. At most, it merely corroborates the findings of the companydesignated physician; what prevails is the opinion of the latter, particularly the July 6, 2009 medical report recommending continued treatment and management of respondent's condition. Pecuniary Awards On the matter of pecuniary awards, the Court finds no reason to disturb the pronouncement of the CA in this regard. In the exercise of its power of review, the findings of fact of the CA are conclusive and binding on this Court; it is not the latter's function to analyze or weigh evidence all over again. Deceitful Conduct Finally, this Court has not failed to notice how petitioners' counsels of record, Attorneys Herbert A. Tria and Jerome T. Pampolina, repeatedly attempted - all throughout the elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/61296 14/20