6/5/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly certification made by Dr. Lim with respect to Santiago's disability." (Emphasis and underscoring supplied) The above pronouncement was reiterated in subsequent cases, particularly Veritas Maritime Corporation v. Gepanaga, Jr.;[64] Daraug v. KGJS Fleet Management Manila, Inc.;[65] Bahia Shipping Services, Inc. v. Hipe;[66] Magsaysay Maritime Corporation v. Simbajon;[67] and Ayungo v. Beamko Shipmanagement Corporation.[68] Thus, following the ruling in Dumadag, this Court rules that for respondent's disregard of the conflict-resolution procedure under the parties' POEA Standard Employment Contract, his claims against petitioners should have been denied, since the companydesignated physician Dr. Alegre's assessment necessarily stands. Indeed, since respondent was the one pursuing a claim, as he did by filing a labor complaint before the NLRC, then it was he - and not petitioners - who should have taken the initiative to secure the opinion of a third physician prior to seeking intervention by the labor tribunals. Besides, there is no reason to doubt Dr. Alegre's medical opinion regarding respondent's condition. Prior to his final declaration, he took pains to address respondent's condition and did his best to reconcile the conflicting medical evidence with respondent's declared symptoms. His objective resolve led him so far as to require respondent to undergo a comprehensive battery of tests - EMG-NCV test, provocative discography, and even MMPI-2 - just to make sure that respondent's complaints are addressed, while at the same time insure that an objective diagnosis of his illness is obtained. There is thus merit in Dr. Alegre's finding that respondent is malingering; medical evidence obtained after the battery of tests is to the effect that respondent's supposed excruciating back pain is not supported by or commensurate to the results of the provocative discography and MMPI-2 tests. Being scientific medical procedures, the accuracy and reliability of these tests cannot be doubted; besides, they have not been questioned in these proceedings. As for respondent's claim that petitioners should answer for greater amounts than that adjudged by the appellate court - that is, disability benefits in the amount of US$105,761.00; reimbursement of his medical expenses; and combined actual, moral and exemplary damages in the amount of P3 million -this Court may not allow it. In order for such claims to be considered, respondent should have filed the corresponding petition for review questioning the judgment of the CA. Settled is the rule that a party is barred from assailing the correctness of a judgment not appealed from by him. In an appeal, an appellee may argue only to sustain the appealed judgment, but not introduce arguments that would modify the same; in order to do that, he likewise should have seasonably filed an appeal. The rule is rooted in the presumption that a party who did not interpose an appeal is satisfied with the judgment rendered by the lower court. WHEREFORE, the Petition is GRANTED. The assailed March 13,2012 Decision and May 21, 2012 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 118688 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The November 30, 2010 Decision of the National Labor Relations elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/61305 18/25