8/26/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly De Vera moved for reconsideration, but the same was denied by the NLRC in its March 27, 2014 Resolution. Aggrieved, De Vera filed a petition for certiorari before the CA. The CA Ruling In its assailed August 20, 2015 Decision, the CA denied De Vera's petition and affirmed the February 21, 2014 Decision and the March 27, 2014 Resolution of the NLRC. The appellate court ratiocinated that De Vera failed to comply with Section 20(A)(3) of the POEA-Amended Standard Terms and Conditions Governing the Overseas Employment of Filipino Seafarers on Board Ocean Going Ships or the POEA-Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC). It explained that the parties should have sought the opinion of an independent third doctor in view of the contradictory findings of the company-designated physicians and the seafarer's physician. It further noted that the respondents were not aware of De Vera's disagreement with the "fit to work" assessment by the company-designated physicians at the time he filed his complaint. Because of this and considering the failure to obtain the opinion of a third doctor, the appellate court ruled that the medical findings by the company-designated physicians must be upheld. The appellate court further opined that even on the assumption that the third doctor's opinion may be dispensed with, the findings by the company-designated physicians deserve more credence than that of De Vera's personal physician. It pointed out that Dr. Garcia examined De Vera only once and merely interpreted the medical findings by the company-designated physicians. In contrast, the company-designated physicians examined De Vera several times for a period of two months even issuing a separate medical report after each examination. Thus, the appellate court ruled that the assessment made by the company-designated physicians is more reliable. Lastly, the appellate court concurred with the NLRC's observation that De Vera impliedly admitted the correctness of the medical assessment by the company-designated physicians when he executed a Deed of Release and Quitclaim releasing and discharging the respondents from all claims arising from his employment. In sum, the CA dismissed the contention that the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion when it reversed the Labor Arbiter's November 28, 2013 Decision. The fallo of the assailed decision states: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition is DENIED. The assailed Decision dated February 21, 2014 and Resolution dated March 27, 2014, both rendered by public respondent NLRC, are AFFIRMED. ORDERED.[27] De Vera moved for reconsideration, but the same was denied by the CA in its assailed February 5, 2016 Resolution. Hence, this petition. The Issue https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65369 4/14