6/14/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly Suffice to say, in Licayan v. Seacrest Maritime Management, Inc., et al.,[95] the employer failed to dispute the presumption of work-relatedness and simply relied on the company-designated physician's outright disavowal of workconnection, which was unsupported by any substantial basis. Similar to the instant case, the medical report "was too sweeping and inadequate to support a conclusion."[96] Likewise, Dr. Alegre failed to consider the varied factors to which the seafarer was exposed to while on board the vessel.[97] In contrast, Dr. Peneyra's report was more comprehensive and holistic, as she considered Alcid's genetic predisposition, working conditions on-board the vessel, and related these to established medical studies. Next, respondents may not fault Alcid for failing to obtain the opinion of a third doctor. This Court clarified in Leonis Navigation Co. Inc., et al. v. Obrero, et al.,[98] that the provision requiring referral to a third physician does not apply to disputes pertaining to the work-relatedness of the disease: As a final point, we deem it necessary to distinguish the present case from Philippine Hammonia Ship Agency, Inc. v. Dumadag in order to avoid confusion in the application of the POEA-SEC. In that case, we held that under Section 20(8)(3) of the POEA-SEC, referral to a third physician in case of contrasting medical opinions (between the company-designated physician and the seafarer-appointed physician) is a mandatory procedure that must be expressly requested by the seafarer: a consequence of the provision, the company can insist on its disability rating even against a contrary opinion by another physician, unless the seafarer signifies his intent to submit the disputed assessment to a third physician. We clarify, however, that Section 20(B)(3) refers only to the declaration of fitness to work or the degree of disability. It does not cover the determination of whether the disability is work-related. There is nothing in the POEA-SEC which mandates that the opinion of the company-designated physician regarding work-relation should prevail or that the determination of such relation be submitted to a third physician. It bears emphasis that, in the present case, it is not disputed that Obrero's illness is permanent in nature. The only issue here is work-relatedness. The non-referral to a third physician is therefore inconsequential. x x x [99] (Emphasis supplied) Besides, even if respondents insist on the opinion of a third physician, fault does not lie on Alcid. The records reveal that he actually expressed his willingness to have his condition referred to a third physician. However, the respondents failed to act on his request.[100] As ruled in Bahia Shipping Services, Inc. v. Constantino;[101] Formerly INC Shipmanagement Incorporated v. Rosales;[102] and Aldrine B. Ilustricimo v. NYKFIL Ship Mgm't., Inc./Int'l. Cruise Services, Ltd.:[103] x x x [W]hen the seafarer challenges the company doctor's assessment through the assessment made by his own doctor, the seafarer shall so https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/66892 12/23