5/28/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly Salvador, as opposed to the opinion of his private physician, Dr. Vicaldo.[69] The question of weighing the credibility of two opposing medical opinions involves a factual review beyond the scope of a petition under Rule 45. There appears to be no reason to overturn the lower court’s factual findings giving more weight to the assessment of the company-designated physician. As discussed by the Court of Appeals, “as between the company-designated doctor who has all the medical records of petitioner for the duration of his treatment and as against the latter’s private doctor who merely examined him for a day as an outpatient, the former’s finding must prevail.”[70] Several jurisprudence have given more weight to the assessment of the doctor that closely monitored and actually treated the seafarer. In Philman Marine v. Cabanban,[71] this court gave more credence to the companydesignated physician’s assessment since “records show that the medical certifications issued by Armando’s chosen physician were not supported by such laboratory tests and/or procedures that would sufficiently controvert the “normal” results of those administered to Armando at the St. Luke’s Medical Center. . . [while] the medical certificate of the petitioners’ designated physician was issued after three months of closely monitoring Armando’s medical condition and progress, and after careful analysis of the results of the diagnostic tests and procedures administered to Armando while in consultation with Dr. Crisostomo, a cardiologist.”[72] Philman discussed as follows: In several cases, we held that the doctor who have had a personal knowledge of the actual medical condition, having closely, meticulously and regularly monitored and actually treated the seafarer’s illness, is more qualified to assess the seafarer’s disability. In Coastal Safeway Marine Services, Inc. v. Esguerra, the Court significantly brushed aside the probative weight of the medical certifications of the private physicians, which were based merely on vague diagnosis and general impressions. Similarly in Ruben D. Andrada v. Agemar Manning Agency, Inc., et al., the Court accorded greater weight to the assessments of the companydesignated physician and the consulting medical specialist which resulted from an extensive examination, monitoring and treatment of the seafarer’s condition, in contrast with the recommendation of the private physician which was “based only on a single medical report . . . [outlining] the alleged findings and medical history . . . obtained after . . . [one examination].”[73] (Emphasis supplied) In the recent case of Dalusong v. Eagle Clarc Shipping Philippines, Inc.,[74] we ruled that “the findings of the company-designated doctor, who, with his team of specialists . . . periodically treated petitioner for months and monitored his condition, deserve greater evidentiary weight than the single medical report of petitioner’s doctor, who elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/58809 8/17