6/7/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly Balatero likewise emphasizes that under the Medical Standards in the Conduct of PEME for Seafarers,[44] his cardiovascular conditions, which require him to take more than two maintenance medicines, render him unfit for service.[45] Balatero further insists that under Section 20(A)(3)[46] of the 2010 POEA SEC, in case of variance between the assessments of the company-designated doctor and the seafarer's physician of choice, referral to a third doctor is merely optional and directory, not mandatory. The Court reiterated the foregoing in Maersk Filipinas Crewing, Inc./Maersk Services Ltd., et al. v. Mesina.[47] In Dalusong v. Eagle ClarecShipping Philippines, Inc., et al.,[48] the Court declared that in the event that no third doctor is appointed by the parties, the labor tribunal and the courts shall evaluate the respective merits of the conflicting medical assessments of the company-designated doctor, on one hand, and the seafarer's chosen physician, on the other.[49] Balatero challenges as well the CA's declaration that Dr. Lara-Orencia's findings cannot be given credence as she had made her assessment on the basis of a single consultation. Balatero explains that his chosen doctor cannot be expected to replicate all the procedures, tests and examinations already conducted as to do otherwise would have been impractical. It was sufficient that Dr. Lara-Orencia interpreted the results of medical tests and procedures, and formulated her assessment therefrom.[50] As to his claims for moral and exemplary damages, and attorney's fees, Balatero argues that the respondents' unjust denial of his disability benefits was attended by bad faith, and had compelled him to engage legal services to protect his rights. As Balatero had suffered moral anguish, severe anxiety and wounded feelings by reason thereof, the respondents' acts and omissions deserve correction.[51] Anent Aaron and Bonoan's liabilities as corporate officers of SCMI, Balatero alleges that under Section 10[52] of Republic Act No. 8042, or the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995, they should be held solidarily responsible for the money claims. In bad faith, they assented to the unlawful acts, or were grossly negligent in preventing the commission thereof.[53] Lastly, Balatero points out that in Coquilla v. Commission on Elections,[54] the Court explained that reiterations in the MR of the issues passed upon by the court does not render a motion pro forma. To hold otherwise would mean that the movant should instead resort to new trial or other remedies.[55] The respondents, on their part, contend that the POEA SEC does not state that a disability grading issued by a company-designated doctor automatically entitles a seafarer to disability benefits. A disability grading assessment is a form of evaluation, but it does not determine the work-relation of an illness. The said assessment can be made even if the illness is not work-related.[56] The respondents also assert that Dr. Olalia categorically found Balatero's illnesses to be multi-factorial in origin, with genetic predisposition, unhealthy lifestyle, salty diet, smoking, Diabetes Mellitus, age and increased sympathetic activity as possible risk elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/63152 7/17