3/31/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly 10. when the findings of fact are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence of record; and 11. when the Court of Appeals manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties, which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion.[24] As there is a divergence of findings between the Labor Arbiter and the CA, on one hand, and the NLRC, on the other, on the medical report made by the companydesignated physician, Dr. Celino, and medical certificate issued by Briones' personal doctor, Dr. Magtira, this Court will exercise its discretionary power of review. After a judicious review of the records, the Court resolves to deny the petition. The Amended Standard Terms and Conditions Governing the Employment of Filipino Seafarers On-Board Ocean-Going Vessels, also known as POEA Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC) provides for the procedure to be followed in case there is a divergence in medical findings between the company-designated physician and the seafarer's personal doctor. Under Section 20(A)(3) of the 2010 POEA-SEC, "[if] a doctor appointed by the seafarer disagrees with the assessment, 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." The provision refers to the declaration of fitness to work or the degree of disability. It presupposes that the company-designated physician came up with a valid, final and definite assessment as to the seafarer's fitness or unfitness to work before the expiration of the 120-day or 240-day period. The company can insist on its disability rating even against a contrary opinion by another doctor, unless the seafarer signifies his intent to submit the dispute assessment to a third physician. The duty to secure the opinion of a third doctor belongs to the employee asking for disability benefits. He must actively or expressly request for it.[25] This referral to a third doctor has been held by this Court to be a mandatory procedure[26] and the seafarer's non-compliance with the conflict-resolution procedure results in the affirmance of the fit-to-work certification of the company-designated physician.[27] It should, however, be stressed that non-compliance with the third doctor referral does not automatically make the diagnosis of the company-designated physician conclusive and binding on the courts. The Court has previously held that, "if the findings of the company-designated physician are clearly biased in favor of the employer, then courts may give greater weight to the findings of the seafarer's personal physician. Clear bias on the part of the company-designated physician may be shown if there is no scientific relation between the diagnosis and the symptoms felt by the seafarer, or if the final assessment of the company-designated physician is not supported by the medical records of the seafarer."[28] We also ruled in Kestrel Shipping Co., Inc., et al., v. Munar, [29] that, "A seafarer's compliance with such procedure presupposes that the company- designated physician came up with an assessment as to his fitness or unfitness to work before the expiration of the 120-day or 240 day periods. Alternatively put, absent a certification from the company-designated physician, the seafarer had nothing to contest and the law steps in to conclusively characterize his disability as total and permanent." https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/66202 6/10