8/26/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly In this case, the findings of Beamko and Eagle Maritime's physicians that Ayungo's illnesses were not work-related were, in turn, controverted by Ayungo's personal doctor stating otherwise. In light of these contrasting diagnoses, Ayungo prematurely filed his complaint before the NLRC without any regard to the conflict-resolution procedure under Section 20(B)(3) of the 2000 POEA-SEC. Thus, consistent with Philippine Hammonia, the Court is inclined to uphold the opinion of Beamko and Eagle Maritime's physicians that Ayungo's illnesses were pre-existing and not work-related, hence, non-compensable.[69] (Emphasis supplied) Evidently, Tiquio's failure to observe the conflict-resolution procedure under the POEASEC provided sufficient basis for the denial of his claim for total and permanent disability benefits. In fact, the Court observes that when he filed the complaint on September 1, 2014, Tiquio had yet to even present the contrary opinion from a doctor of his choice. It was only on December 16, 2014,[70] when he filed his Rejoinder (to [Respondents'] Reply), that Tiquio presented the conflicting medical certificate[71] which, interestingly, was obtained only on December 3, 2014. Notably, it bears pointing out that nowhere in said medical certificate was it shown that he consulted the independent doctor prior to the filing of the complaint, as claimed by him. Neither was it shown that he informed petitioners of his consultation with his personal doctor regarding his illness and of the latter's contradictory assessment at any time prior to instituting the disability benefits claim, which events could have triggered the conflictresolution mechanism of the POEA-SEC. Moreover, it deserves pointing out that, contrary to Tiquio's claim that petitioners have already waived their right to assert compliance with the conflict-resolution procedure, [72] records do not disclose otherwise. On the contrary, records show that petitioners manifested their willingness to refer the matter to a third doctor during the mandatory conferences before the LA.[73] Considering, however, that Tiquio has yet to present a second doctor's opinion, there was consequently no valid contest to the CDP's opinion that could have been referred to the third doctor for final assessment. To reiterate, jurisprudence states that the seafarer's non-compliance with the mandated conflictresolution procedure under the POEA-SEC militates against his claims, thus resulting in the affirmance of the findings and assessment of the company-designated physician, [74] and effectively renders the complaint premature.[75] Notably, the Court is aware of the rule that precludes application of said conflictresolution mechanism in the absence of a final and definitive assessment issued by the CDP within the prescribed periods, which would, in such situation, render the seafarer's disability grading, by operation of law, total and permanent. Nonetheless, said exception to the third doctor rule does not apply in this case, considering that as of July 1, 2013,[76] the CDP had already diagnosed Tiquio to be suffering from Graves' Disease, which the CDP declared as "NOT Work Oriented," and on October 30, 2013, or well within the 120-day period, had finally assessed Tiquio as unfit for sea duty whose illness was "NOT Work Oriented" and would require "lifetime treatment with hormone replacement," for which no "[disability [grading is] xxx applicable."[77] The CDP's assessment remained consistent throughout Tiquio's treatment, which petitioners https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65357 7/20