6/7/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly existing" and that "it was difficult to say whether his diabetes mellitus and small pontine infarct are pre-existing or not." In ruling for the seafarer, the Court opined that the company-designated physician breached his obligation under Section 20(B)(3) of the POEA-SEC when he failed to give a definite assessment, thus: Rather than making a full assessment of Libang's health condition, disability or fitness, Dr. Lim only reasoned in his medical certificate dated August 13, 2003, that "[Libang's] hypertension could be pre-existing" and that "it [was] difficult to say whether [his diabetes mellitus and small pontine infarct] are pre-existing or not." His assessment was evidently uncertain and the extent of his examination for a proper medical diagnosis was incomplete. The alleged concealment by Libang of his hypertension during his pre-employment medical examination was also unsubstantiated, but was a mere hearsay purportedly relayed to Dr. Lim by one Dr. Aileen Corbilla, his co-attending physician. A categorical statement from Dr. Lim that Libang's illnesses were pre-existing and nonwork-related was made only in his affidavit dated July 16, 2004, or after the subject labor complaint had been filed. Still, Dr. Lim gave no explanation for his statement that Libang's illnesses were not work-related. xxxx Clearly, there was a breach by Dr. Lim of his obligation as the companydesignated physician. Although Libang repeatedly argued that Dr. Lim failed to give an assessment of his illness, herein respondents and Dr. Lim failed to explain and justify such failure. In Kestrel Shipping Co., Inc. v. Munar, the Court emphasized that the company-designated physician is expected to arrive at a definite assessment of the seafarer's fitness or permanent disability within the 120 or 240 days, as the case may be; otherwise, he shall be deemed totally and permanently disabled. The Court shall, nonetheless, not make such a declaration in this case because by Libang's plea for a reinstatement of the labor tribunals' rulin%s, he was of the position that his disability was not total and permanent.[24] (emphases supplied) A similar observation obtains in this case, While the letter, dated 20 May 2004, stated that Dedace's illness is not work-related, nothing would suggest that the same is Dr. Cruz's definite medical assessment. In the first place, the said statement was based merely on the opinion of another specialist, a gastroenterologist, who was not even named. Certainly, Dr. Cruz did not even offer his own opinion on the matter. Furthermore, the records do not show that Dedace was examined by or was placed under the care of any gastroenterologist. Thus, the unnamed gastroenterologist's opinion on Dedace's illness is immaterial in this case. Finally, neither Dr. Cruz nor the unnamed gastroenterologist gave an explanation for the statement that Dedace's illness is not work-related. While the company-designated physician must declare the nature of a seafarer's disability, the former's declaration is not conclusive and final upon the latter or the court. Its inherent merit will still be weighed and duly considered.[25] For this reason, it is not enough that the companyelibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/64366 8/13