8/23/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly of his intent to do so on the petitioners. There was no other way to validate his claim but this. Without the notice of intent to refer his case to the third physician, the petitioners could not themselves initiate the referral. Moreover, such third physician, because he would resolve the conflict between the assessments, must be jointly chosen by the parties thereafter. Unless the respondent served the notice of his intent, he could not then validly insist on an assessment different from that made by the company-designated physician.[17] This outcome, which accorded with the procedure expressly set in the POEA-SEC, was unavoidable for him, for, as well explained in Hernandez v. Magsaysay Maritime Corporation:[18] Under Section 20 (A) (3) of the 2010 POEA-SEC, "[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 provision refers to the declaration of fitness to work or the degree of disability. It presupposes that the company-designated physician came up with a valid, final and definite assessment as to the seafarer's fitness or unfitness to work before the expiration of the 120-day or 240-day period. The company can insist on its disability rating even against a contrary opinion by another doctor, unless the seafarer signifies his intent to submit the disputed assessment to a third physician. The duty to secure the opinion of a third doctor belongs to the employee asking for disability benefits. He must actively or expressly request for it. (Underscoring and emphasis supplied) Moreover, the failure of the respondent to signify the intent to submit himself to the third physician was a direct contravention of the terms and conditions of his contract with the petitioners.[19] Such contravention disauthorized the making of the claim for the benefits. On the basis of the foregoing, the respondent's claim for disability benefits predicated on his physician's assessment would be bereft of basis considering that his noncompliance with the procedure expressly provided by law led to the fit-to-work assessment by the company-designated physician becoming the controlling and only reliable medical assessment.[20] Anent the result of the PEME that found and declared the respondent unfit for duty as a seafarer, we accord it weight. The physical examination undertaken by him at Supercare was only for the purpose of his re-employment and the approval of another contract for him. We have observed before that .... while a PEME may reveal enough for the petitioner to decide whether a seafarer is fit for overseas employment, it may not be relied upon to inform petitioners of a seafarer's true state of health. The PEME could not have divulged respondent's illness considering that the examinations were not exploratory.[21] Indeed, the tentativeness of the findings of fitness following the PEME was precisely the reason why Supercare still referred the respondent to Dr. Balingit. Neither could the elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65168 6/9