4/29/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly The petitioners question the CA’s reliance on HFS Philippines, Inc. v. Pilar[20] in affirming Dumadag’s award based solely on the findings of his physicians. They maintain that although the Court’s ruling in HFS Philippines recognized the prerogative of the seafarer to dispute the company-designated physician’s report by seasonably consulting another doctor, the contrary medical report shall be evaluated first by the labor tribunal and the court based on its inherent merit. The CA, the petitioners point out, failed to evaluate the merit of the reports of Dumadag’s physicians. The petitioners argue that a careful analysis of the reports presented by both parties would readily show that the company-designated physician’s report deserves more credence as these physicians arrived at their results after extensive examination and treatment of Dumadag. On the other hand, an evaluation of the reports of Dumadag’s doctors reveals that they were inaccurate and unreliable as they were mere reiterations of the company-designated doctor’s diagnoses. On a related matter, the petitioners fault the CA in disregarding the procedure in the POEA-SEC in the resolution of disability claims vis-a-vis the seafarer’s disability rating or fitness to work. Citing Vergara v. Hammonia Maritime Services, Inc.,[21] they posit that although Dumadag has the right to contest the assessment of the companydesignated physician, the findings of his doctors are not binding as the POEA-SEC and even the parties’ CBA expressly provide that the parties may agree to consult a third doctor whose opinion shall be binding on them. They submit that since Dumadag failed to observe the procedure, the finding of the company specialist that he is fit to work should be upheld. With respect to Dumadag’s non-hiring, the petitioners submit that the CA gravely abused its discretion when it held that the fact that they did not rehire him is the most convincing proof that his inability to work was due to his illness. They contend that being a seafarer, Dumadag is a contractual employee whose employment is terminated upon the contract’s expiration; his non-rehiring should not be taken against them as it is their prerogative to hire or not to hire him. Moreover, Dumadag did not present any evidence to establish his allegation that he was not rehired because of his illness; neither was there a showing that he was deprived of the opportunity to work. Finally, the petitioners lament the CA’s award of attorney’s fees to Dumadag, arguing that the denial of his claim was in good faith and based on valid grounds. The Case for Dumadag As required by the Court,[22] Dumadag filed his Comment on the petition on April 25, 2011,[23] praying that the petition be dismissed on the following grounds: (1) it raises only questions of fact, in violation of Rule 45 of the Rules of Court; and (2) the CA’s award of disability benefits to him is in accord with the evidence. Dumadag submits that inasmuch as the petition involves an inquiry into the findings of four independent physicians which formed the basis of the rulings of the LA, the NLRC and the CA, it is clear that the petitioners are raising solely factual issues which is not elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/55919 4/10