6/7/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly dates as prescribed by the company-designated physician and agreed to by the seafarer. Failure of the seafarer to comply with the mandatory reporting requirement shall result in his forfeiture of the right to claim the above benefits. If a doctor appointed by the seafarer disagrees with the assessment, a third doctor may be agreed jointly between the Employer and the seafarer. The third doctor's decision shall be final and binding on both parties. The Court will, thus, proceed to discuss the first substantive issue which relates to the findings of petitioner's appointed doctor vis-a-vis that of the company-designated physicians. As discussed above, the opinion of petitioner's physician, that his hypertension is essential and work-related, is diametrically opposed to the evaluation made by the company doctors which found that petitioner's hypertension is not work-related. The question then is, whose assessment or finding should prevail? In Andrada v. Agemar Manning Agency, Inc., et. al.,[47] this Court held that: Jurisprudence is replete with pronouncements that it is the companydesignated physician who is entrusted with the task of assessing the seaman's disability, whether total or partial, due to either injury or illness, during the term of the latter's employment. It is his findings and evaluations which should form the basis of the seafarer's disability claim. His assessment, however, is not automatically final, binding or conclusive on the claimant, the labor tribunal or the courts, as its inherent merits would still have to be weighed and duly considered. The seafarer may dispute such assessment by seasonably exercising his prerogative to seek a second opinion and consult a doctor of his choice. In case of disagreement between the findings of the company-designated physician and the seafarer's doctor of choice, the employer and the seaman may agree jointly to refer the latter to a third doctor whose decision shall be final and binding on them.[48] In the present case, there is no evidence to show that the parties jointly sought the opinion of a third physician in the determination and assessment of petitioner's disability or the absence of it. Hence, the credibility of the findings of their respective doctors was properly evaluated by the labor tribunals (LA and NLRC) as well as the CA on the basis of their inherent merits. After a review of the records at hand, the Court finds that there is no cogent reason to overturn the factual findings of the LA and the CA which accorded more weight to the findings of the company-designated doctors as against the assessment of petitioner's private physician, Dr. Jacinto. The Court agrees with the conclusion of the CA that, unlike the evaluation made by the company physicians, there is no evidence to prove that Dr. Jacinto's findings were reached based on an extensive or comprehensive examination of petitioner. In the Medical Certificate[49] he issued, Dr. Jacinto diagnosed petitioner as suffering from "Uncontrolled Essential Hypertension, Hypertensive Cardiomyopathy and Malaise," that his condition did not improve "despite management and medications" and, by reason of elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/63251 8/14