6/7/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly respondents at their company-designated clinic, but the actual medical findings of the spine surgeon were not presented in evidence. Petitioner should have raised the issue on the medical reports being hearsay evidence before the Labor Arbiter. As a general rule, points of law, theories, and arguments not brought below cannot be raised for the first time on appeal and will not be considered by this Court; otherwise, a denial of the respondent's right to due process will result. [56] In the interest of justice, however, the Court may consider and resolve issues not raised below if it is necessary for the complete adjudication of the rights and obligations of the parties, and it falls within the issues found by the parties.[57] The medical reports of Dr. Tay, referred to by petitioner, are the reports addressed to the President of respondent Crossworld Marine Services, Inc., informing him about the medical condition of petitioner. These medical reports on petitioner's series of medical treatments - from his referral to the company doctors for six sessions of physical therapy, MRI, two surgical procedures (laminectomy and foraminotomy) to address the slipped disc in petitioner's lumbar area, and six sessions of physical therapy after his operation - were not disputed by petitioner before the Labor Arbiter, NLRC and the Court of Appeals and he even confirmed the medical treatments contained in the said reports in his Complaint and his Petition before us. The report dated May 12, 2012 (Annex "E")[58] particularly referred to by petitioner states, among others, that the attending spine surgeon re-evaluated the condition of petitioner and "[s]urgery is indicated." Although the actual medical finding of the attending spine surgeon was not presented in evidence, yet, petitioner actually underwent the spine surgery recommended by the attending spine surgeon to address the slipped disc of petitioner in the lumbar area. Apparently, Dr. Tay and the spine surgeon and other companydesignated doctors who attended to petitioner worked closely with each other in monitoring the medical condition of petitioner and their findings are reflected in the medical reports of Dr. Tay. In the absence of substantial evidence from the petitioner that Dr. Tay did not have personal knowledge of the findings in the medical reports, the contention that the medical reports are hearsay is without basis and, therefore, unmeritorious. As regards Dr. Tay's advice that petitioner should continue therapy for two to three months because he failed the functional capacity test, petitioner cited Esguerra v. United Philippines Lines, Inc.,[59] which held that the uncertain effect of further treatment intimates nothing more but that the injury sustained by the seafarer bars him from performing his customary and strenuous work as a seafarer/fitter. As such, he is considered permanently and totally disabled. This case is different from Esguerra. In Esguerra, the Court found that the orthopedic surgeon designated by the respondents therein and the independent specialist of the petitioner therein were one in declaring that the petitioner therein was permanently unfit for sea duty. The petitioner's doctor categorically stated in a medical certificate that petitioner therein was permanently unfit for sea-faring duty, while the report of respondent's designated-surgeon conveyed a similar conclusion when he stated: " [f]urther treatment would probably be of some benefit but will not guarantee (the petitioner's) fitness to work." Hence, the Court held in Esguerra: "The uncertain effect elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/63243 12/17