5/28/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly “In this case, there was no third doctor appointed by both parties whose decision would be binding on the parties. Hence, it is up to the labor tribunal and the courts to evaluate and weigh the merits of the medical reports of the company-designated doctor and the seafarer’s doctor[.]” [70] Rollo, p. 211. [71] G.R. No. 186509, July 29, 2013, 702 SCRA 467 [Per J. Brion, Second Division]. [72] Id. at 487. [73] Id. at 487–488. [74] G.R. No. 204233, September 3, 2014 [Per Acting C.J., Carpio, Second Division]. [75] Id. [76] Rollo, p. 154. [77] Id. at 260. [78] Id. at 261. [79] Id. [80] Id. [81] Id. at 44–45. [82] Id. at 266. [83] Id. at 262. [84] Id. at 265. [85] Id. at 47–48. [86] See Andrada v. Agemar Manning Agency, Inc., G.R. No. 194738, October 24, 2012, 684 SCRA 587 [Per J. Mendoza, Third Division]. See also Jebsen Maritime Inc. v. Undag, G.R. No. 191491, December 14, 2011, 662 SCRA 670 [Per J. Mendoza, Third Division] and Sarocam v. Interorient Maritime, 526 Phil. 448, 451 (2006) [Per J. Callejo, Sr., First Division]. [87] Rollo, p. 311. elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/58809 16/17