6/5/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly In his Reply/Comment,[42] respondent insisted that he is entitled to disability benefits based on his physician's recommendation; that the company-designated physician's treatment was inadequate, and his findings inaccurate and based on fraud and malice, which thus prompted him to secure the opinion of an independent doctor; and that for these reasons, he should be paid all his claims as prayed for in his Position Paper. In their Reply[43] to respondent's Position Paper, petitioners argued that there is no basis for the accusation of refusal or failure to give respondent immediate and proper medical attention after his injury, as he failed to show convincingly that indeed he suffered his injuries sometime in February 2007. His only basis for such claim - a supposed "Notification of Accident at Work" marked Annex "D" of his Position Paper[44] — is self-serving and hearsay, since it was not signed by him. Moreover, there is no truth to his allegation that he protested and appealed for medical intervention or that he was forced to work and endure excruciating pain for two months before proper medical intervention was done. On the contrary, he was able to work until his repatriation in May 2007. In addition, they gave him timely and extensive medical attention and treatment, with the company-designated physician closely monitoring his condition all throughout. Also, based on the medical findings of the companydesignated physician, respondent was feigning his illness. Moreover, respondent's doctor's opinion cannot prevail over the company-designated physician's findings, as it was merely based on a single MRI report, and not on an extensive treatment and monitoring of respondent's condition over an extended period of time; and that for lack of legal basis, respondent cannot claim indemnity based on a supposed collective bargaining agreement or foreign law. Ruling of the Labor Arbiter On March 23, 2010, a Decision[45] was rendered by Labor Arbiter Catalino R. Laderas granting disability benefits and attorney's fees in favor of respondent. The Decision decrees as follows: Upon his repatriation on 01 May 2007, complainant was assessed and medically treated by respondents' company-designated physician and the latter's team of specialists and was never declared fit to work. Finding that complainant's illness is compensable, we now determine whether the same is permanent or total in order that he may claim full disability benefits. xxxx In the case at bar, x x x while respondents' company-designated doctor/s provided a disability rating for complainant's sustained injury, the former, nonetheless failed to make any declaration and/or assessment as to the latter's fitness for work and/or capability to render sea duty. elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/61305 8/25