8/27/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly According to the Court of Appeals, the dispute must be guided by the 2010 Philippine Overseas Employment Administration Standard Employment Contract (POEA Standard Employment Contract), specifically Section 20-A,[30] which provides: SECTION 20. Compensation and Benefits. — .... 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 Court of Appeals found that Esteva did not follow the procedure prescribed in the POEA Standard Employment Contract. Instead of referring the matter to a third doctor agreed by both parties, he immediately filed a Complaint for permanent disability benefits. Failing to observe this procedure, the Court of Appeals gave more credence to the certification issued by the company-designated physician.[31] The Court of Appeals also doubted Dr. Raymundo's certification due to the discrepancy in dates. It found that Esteva had alleged seeing Dr. Raymundo on September 17, 2013, which is a later date than the certificate's date of issuance on July 19, 2013.[32] Lastly, the Court of Appeals deleted the award of attorney's fees after it found that Smith Bell Manning did not act in gross and evident bad faith in refusing to pay Esteva's disability benefits.[33] However, the Court of Appeals sustained the award of sickness allowance amounting to US$2,700.00.[34] On August 10, 2016, Esteva filed before this Court a Petition for Review on Certiorari. [35] In its September 21, 2016 Resolution,[36] this Court ordered respondent Smith Bell Manning to file a comment and petitioner to submit a softcopy of his Petition with a verified declaration. In his October 26, 2016 Compliance,[37] Esteva sent electronic copies of the Petition and its annexes. On November 7, 2016, Smith Bell Manning filed its Comment.[38] On November 24, 2016, Esteva filed his Reply.[39] Petitioner asserts that the referral to a third doctor is not mandatory and may be agreed upon by both parties under the POEA Standard Employment Contract.[40] This, petitioner points out, is supported by the very provision that the Court of Appeals had relied on: that "a third doctor may be agreed jointly between the employer and the seafarer."[41] He avers that respondents have neither offered nor asked him to refer his injuries to a third doctor for an assessment. Thus, he did not breach the provision.[42] Petitioner adds that respondents failed to inform him that the company-designated physician had already made an assessment of his condition. He claims that he was never furnished copies of the disability assessment, and that he only knew of this after both parties had filed their position papers before the Labor Arbiter.[43] https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65396 4/20