6/5/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly to the non-referral by the seafarer to a third doctor. In Philippine Hammonia Ship Agency v. Dumadag,[17] we considered the filing of the complaint by the seafarer as a breach of his contractual obligation to have the conflicting assessments of his disability referred to a third doctor for a binding opinion. The case of Formerly INC Shipmanagement v. Rosales[18] was categorical in stating that non-referral to a third physician, whose decision shall be considered as final and binding, constitutes a breach of the POEA-SEC. The more practical consideration in favoring the medical findings of the companydesignated physician was explained in Dalusong v. Eagle Clarc, Shipping,[19] thus: As the Court aptly stated in Philman Marine Agency, Inc. (now DOHLEPHILMAN Manning Agency, Inc.) v. Cabanban, “the doctor who have had a personal knowledge of the actual medical condition, having closely, meticulously and regularly monitored and actually treated the seafarer’s illness, is more qualified to assess the seafarer’s disability.” Based on the Disability Report of petitioner’s doctor, it appears that he only conducted a physical examination on petitioner before issuing his final diagnosis and disability rating on petitioner’s condition. Clearly, the findings of the company-designated doctor, who, with his team of specialists which included an orthopedic surgeon and a physical therapist, periodically treated petitioner for months and monitored his condition, deserve greater evidentiary weight than the single medical report of petitioner’s doctor, who appeared to have examined petitioner only once. Following jurisprudence, the Court of Appeals correctly upheld the fit-to-work order issued by the company-designated physician. After the certification on the fitness for sea duties was issued by the company-designated physician, petitioner sought a second opinion from a private doctor. When the private doctor opined that petitioner was unfit to work, petitioner wasted no time in filing the instant complaint. Verily, he did not bother to seek the opinion of a third person as mandated by the POEA-SEC. Furthermore, the private doctor had only examined petitioner once while the companydesignated physician had monitored petitioner’s medical condition for several months. As aptly observed by the Court of Appeals: It also bears to note that petitioners extended medical assistance to private respondent from the time he arrived in the Philippines up to the time he was declared fit to resume his sea duties. The records show that petitioners referred him to the company-designated physician, Dr. Susannah OngSalvador of SHIP where he was diagnosed by the clinic’s ophthalmologists. On February 23, 2006, private respondent underwent an operation on his right eye at UST Hospital and was later admitted therein for further management under the care of SHIP’s specialists. On March 17, 2006, private respondent again underwent a second operation on his left eye at UST Hospital and was admitted therein for three days. Private respondent’s progress was also continuously evaluated and monitored by SHIP’s ophthalmologists as shown by the Medical Progress Reports they issued. In all, the company-designated elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/60647 physician acquired a more detailed 7/10