5/28/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly 12 times for a period of almost six months and, each time they treated him, they issued a report of Constantino’s medical condition, the particular treatment administered and medicines prescribed, which eventually became the basis of Dr. Lim’s fit-to-work declaration. We thus find no merit on Constantino’s objections on Dr. Lim’s qualification or the lack of it when Dr. Lim declared him fit to work. Since Constantino failed to show any bad faith that attended the company doctors’ medical reports, or that the reports were selfserving and were issued to allow the petitioners to avoid liability, we rule that the NLRC did not commit any grave abuse of discretion in its ruling; in short, the NLRC ruling is in accord with the facts and the law. In Philippine Hammonia,[27] where we encountered a similar disability claim, we said: “Dumadag cannot insist that the ‘favorable’ reports of his physicians be chosen over the certification of the company-designated physician, especially if we were to consider that the physicians he consulted examined him for only for a day (or shorter) on four different dates x x x Moreover, we point out that they merely relied on the same medical history, diagnoses and analyses provided by the company-designated specialists. Under the circumstances, we cannot simply say that their findings are more reliable than the conclusions of the company-designated physicians”[28] (underscoring ours). Second. There is no dispute that under the POEA-SEC, Constantino was not precluded from seeking a second opinion on his medical condition or disability. The third paragraph of the Section 20 (B)3 of the POEA-SEC states that “If a doctor appointed by the seafarer disagrees with the assessment (of the companydesignated physician), a third doctor may be agreed jointly between the Employer and the seafarer. The third doctor’s decision shall be final and binding on both parties (underscoring, emphasis and phrase in parentheses ours). Constantino did consult on May 31, 2003[29] with Dr. Almeda whose assessment of his medical condition and disability disagreed with that of Dr. Lim. Dr. Almeda found Constantino unfit to work, although he gave him a POEA-SEC Grade 11 impediment equivalent to permanent partial disability as compared with the fit-to-work assesssement of Dr. Lim who managed the petitioners’ medical team handling Constantino’s treatment and rehabilitation. The disagreement should have been referred to a third doctor for final determination, jointly by Constantino and the petitioners. There was no such referral. To our mind, the non-referral cannot be blamed on the petitioners. Since Constantino consulted with Dr. Almeda without informing the petitioners, he should have actively requested that the disagreement between his doctor’s assessment and that of Dr. Lim be referred to a final and binding third opinion. In the absence of any request from Constantino (as shown by the records of the case), the employer-company cannot be expected to respond. As the party seeking to impugn the certification that the law itself recognizes as prevailing, Constantino bears the burden of positive action to prove that his doctor’s findings are correct, as well as the elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/57526 6/9