3/31/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly company-designated physician came up with an assessment of one's fitness or unfitness to work before the expiration of the 120-day or 240-day periods and that the certification must be a definite assessment of the seafarer's fitness to work or permanent disability.[19] According to the CA, the Medical Report dated December 1, 2015 issued by Dr. Celino, the company-designated physician, failed to make a categorical or definite assessment/declaration on Briones' fitness to work for sea duty, or a disability rating.[20] The appellate court noted that the Medical Report dated March 10, 2016 issued by Briones' personal physician, Dr. Magtira, confirmed that Briones was continuously suffering from back pain. It considered Dr. Magtira's detailed explanation on Briones' injury and result of the MRI of the Thoraco-Lumbar Spine (Non-Contrast) dated February 4, 2016. Thus, as between the findings of Dr. Celino and Dr. Magtira, the CA accorded more weight to the assessment of the latter, who opined that Briones does not have the physical capacity to return to the type of work she was performing at the time of her injury. Accordingly, the CA granted the claims of Briones for payment of total and permanent disability benefits; sickness allowance and attorney's fees, but denied the award of actual and exemplary damages for lack of sufficient factual and legal basis. After their motion for reconsideration was denied by the CA, petitioner filed the present petition raising this lone issue: DID THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMIT SERIOUS, GRAVE AND PATENT ERRORS, AS WELL AS GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION, IN REVERSING THE DECISION OF THE NLRC, THEREBY AWARDING RESPONDENT FULL DISABILITY BENEFITS AND OTHER MONEY CLAIMS DESPITE CLEAR NONENTITLEMENT THERETO, CONTRARY TO THE RELEVANT LAW, RULE AND JURISPRUDENCE?[21] Petitioners assert that the CA's decision militates against the provisions of the POEASEC and recent jurisprudence on maritime compensation cases.[22] It contends that the failure of Briones to comply with the mandatory provision of the POEA-SEC on thirddoctor referral made her claim for total permanent disability premature and rendered the fit-to work findings of Dr. Celino, the company-designated physician, as prevailing and uncontested. The said mandatory procedure under Section 20(A)(3) of the POEASEC is supposed to be an extrajudicial measure premised on the timely contest of the company-designated physician's final disability assessment through the presentation of a contrary second medical opinion before the institution of any complaint for disability benefits. It argued that unlike Dr. Magtira's medical certificate, which was only presented during the submission of position papers before the Labor Arbiter, Dr. Celino's final assessment was amply supported by diagnosis and hence, a valid and definite assessment of the fit-to-work condition of Briones Petitioners, thus, conclude that Briones is not entitled to disability benefi1s because she breached her contractual duties under the conflict resolution provision of the POEA-SEC.[23] Sought for comment to the present petition, Briones contends that the CA was correct in reversing the decision of the NLRC. She argued that the medical report of Dr. Celino is vague and not responsive as to her true medical condition, since it failed to categorically state her fitness to resume her duties as seafarer. Briones points out that although she was cleared from the orthopedic standpoint, the report cannot be https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/66202 4/10