7/7/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly from his chosen physicians should prevail in light of respondents' refusal to respond to Oscares' request to consult a third doctor.[34] Respondents filed their comment[35] wherein they argue first, that Oscares cannot argue for the first time before this Court that his right to due process was violated when respondents' designated physician didn't give him a copy of the final assessment. Oscares was well-aware of the Grade 10 disability assessment made by the designated physician because this was explained to him on his last medical visit.[36] Also, contrary to Oscares' claim, the POEA-SEC does not require the company-designated physician to discuss the implication of his disability on his capacity to work. Section 20A of the POEA-SEC only requires an assessment of fitness to work or degree of disability and the assessment made by respondents' designated physician complied with this requirement.[37] Second, Iloilo Dock & Engineering Co. does not state that rest and recreation forms part of employment.[38] In any event, it is not applicable in this case because the issue here is different. The issue in Iloilo Dock & Engineering Co. was the compensability of the death of the employee in relation to his proximity to the workplace when he died. In this case, the issue is whether Oscares' injury incurred during his rest and recreation is compensable.[39] Third, respondents insist that Oscares' injury was not work-related. He was not hired to sing on board so it cannot be said that his injury was incidental to his employment. His act of singing while jumping has no relation to his duties as Second Assistant Engineer. It was a purely personal and social function. Therefore, the injury resulting from it is not compensable.[40] Fourth, the mere fact that respondents did not rehire Oscares is not conclusive proof of his disability. Oscares did not show that he sought employment elsewhere but was unsuccessful due to his condition. Hence, he has no basis to claim that he has a total and permanent disability.[41] Fifth, Oscares failed to comply with the POEA-SEC's requirement that a final assessment must be made by the company-designated physician before it can be disputed through a secondary assessment. Oscares consulted with his chosen physicians on July 12 and 14, 2016, which is before respondents' designated physician issued the final assessment on July 28, 2016, or 227 days after Oscares' repatriation.[42] Respondents even expressed their willingness to consult a third doctor before the Panel.[43] Accordingly, the assessment of respondents' designated physician should prevail over that of Oscares' chosen physicians[44] Sixth, the CBA submitted by Oscares is different from the CBA in their contract. As such, he cannot claim benefits under it.[45] He is also not entitled to moral damages and attorney's fees because respondents dutifully complied with their obligations by giving him medical attention prior to the issuance of the final assessment.[46] Issue The sole issue before Us is whether the CA erred in setting aside the ruling of the Panel. Ruling of the Court We resolve to grant disability compensation to Oscares equivalent to Grade 10 as https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/66954 4/11