6/7/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly Maritime Corporation, et al. v. Gepanaga, Jr.:[114] Gepanaga failed to observe the prescribed procedure of having the conflicting assessments on his disability referred to a third doctor for a binding opinion. Consequently, the Court applies the following pronouncements laid down in Vergara: The POEA Standard Employment Contract and the CBA clearly provide that when a seafarer sustains a work-related illness or injury while on board the vessel, his fitness or unfitness for work shall be determined by the company-designated physician. If the physician appointed by the seafarer disagrees with the company-designated physician's assessment, the opinion of a third doctor may be agreed jointly between the employer and the seafarer to be the decision final and binding on them. Thus, while petitioner had the right to seek a second and even a third opinion, the final determination of whose decision must prevail must be done in accordance with an agreed procedure. Unfortunately, the petitioner did not avail of this procedure; hence, we have no option but to declare that the company-designated doctor's certification is the final determination that must prevail, x x x. Indeed, for failure of Gepanaga to observe the procedures laid down in the POEA-SEC and the CBA, the Court is left without a choice but to uphold the certification issued by the company-designated physician that the respondent was "fit to go back to work."[115] (Emphasis in the original, citation omitted) In the earlier landmark case of Philippine Hamrnonia Ship Agency, Inc. v. Dumadag, [116] to disregard the third-doctor referral provision in the POEA Standard Employment Contract without any explanation is grave abuse of discretion because it is tantamount to failure to uphold the law between the parties.[117] However, the rule that the company-designated physician's findings shall prevail is not a hard and fast rule. This court has recognized that the company-designated physician may be biased in favor of the employer. In HFS Philippines, Inc., et al v. Pilar,[118] this court upheld the findings of the seafarer's personal physician because it was supported by the medical records of the seafarer.[119] This court also noted that the companydesignated physician downgraded the seafarer's illness:[120] The company-designated physician declared respondent as having suffered a major depression but was already cured and therefore fit to work. On the elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/61719 17/26