1/5/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly Issues 1. Is petitioner guilty of material concealment of a previous medical condition? 2. Is referral to a third doctor mandatory? 3. Is petitioner entitled to total and permanent disability benefits? Ruling To begin with, being not a trier of facts, it is not the Court's function to analyze or weigh evidence all over again in view of the corollary legal precept that the factual findings of the Court of Appeals are conclusive and binding on this Court. The Court, nevertheless, may proceed to probe and resolve factual issues presented here because the findings of the Court of Appeals are contrary to those of the labor arbiter and the NLRC.[21] The employment of seafarers is governed by the contracts they sign at the time of their engagement. So long as the stipulations in said contracts are not contrary to law, morals, public order, or public policy, they have the force of law as between the parties. While the seafarer and his employer are governed by their mutual agreement, the POEA Rules and Regulations require that the POEA-SEC be integrated in every seafarer's contract.[22] Petitioner's employment is governed by the contract he executed with private respondents on March 19, 2013, the POEA-SEC, and the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) between the parties. First Issue No material concealment Private respondents deny petitioner's claim for disability benefits on ground of material concealment of his alleged pre-existing or previous diagnosis with hypertension and coronary artery disease. Pursuant to the 2010 POEA-SEC, an illness shall be considered as pre-existing if prior to the processing of the POEA contract, any of the following conditions is present: (a) the advice of a medical doctor on treatment given for such continuing illness or condition; or (b) the seafarer had been diagnosed and has knowledge of such illness or condition but failed to disclose the same during the PEME, and such cannot be diagnosed during the PEME.[23] More, to speak of fraudulent misrepresentation is not only to say that a person failed to disclose the truth but that he or she deliberately concealed it for a malicious purpose. To equate with fraudulent misrepresentation, the falsity must be coupled with intent to deceive and to profit from that deception.[24] Here, none of these conditions obtains. Consider: One. Although the company-designated doctors stated that petitioner supposedly https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65965 6/19