6/7/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly medical practitioner not unknown to this Court, as he has issued certifications in several disability claims that proved unsuccessful. In Philippine Hammonia, we have ruled that the duty to secure the opinion of a third doctor belongs to the employee asking for disability benefits. We explained: The filing of the complaint constituted a breach of Dumadag's contractual obligation to have the conflicting assessments of his disability referred to a third doctor for a binding opinion. The petitioners could not have possibly caused the non-referral to a third doctor because they were not aware that Dumadag secured separate independent opinions regarding his disability. Similarly, we note that Simbajon was the only one who knew of the conflicting results between Dr. Vicaldo's findings with that of the petitioners' designated physicians. The petitioners had no reason to consider a third doctor because they were not aware that Simbajon secured a separate independent opinion regarding his disability. Thus, the obligation to comply with the requirement of securing the opinion of a neutral, third-party physician rested on Simbajon's shoulders. By failing to observe the required procedure under the POEA-SEC, he clearly violated its terms, i.e., the law between the parties. And without a binding third-party opinion, the fit-towork certification of petitioners' designated physicians prevails over that of Dr. Vicaldo's unfit-to-return-to-work finding. Lastly, we have observed that Dr. Vicaldo only examined Simbajon once. We take this is in comparison with the series of tests and treatments made by Magsaysay's designated physicians to Simbajon. Between the two, the latter's medical opinion deserves more credence for being more thorough and exhaustive.[19] On the other hand, in C.F. Sharp Crew Management, Inc. v. Castillo,[20] the Court clarified that the failure to refer conflicting findings to a third doctor does not ipso facto render the conclusions of the company-designated physician conclusive and binding on the courts, viz: In the instant case, respondent did not seek the opinion of a third doctor. Based on jurisprudence, the findings of the company-designated physician prevail in cases where the seafarer did not observe the third-doctor referral provision in the POEA-SEC. However, if the findings of the companydesignated physician are clearly biased in favor of the employer, then courts may give greater weight to the findings of the seafarer's personal physician. elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/63852 6/11