5/28/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly one hand, and of the NLRC, on the other, in the present petition, makes this case fall within the ambit of the Court’s review.[17] This Court notes that the issue posited in this case is not novel since a catena of cases involving the question of whose disability assessment should prevail in a maritime disability claim – the fit-to-work assessment of the company-designated physician or the unfit-to-work certification of the seafarer’s private doctors – has already come before the Court. In the main, the crux of Belmonte’s argument focuses only on the assumption that just because he has not been re-hired by CFSCMI, he is deemed to be permanently unfit for sea duty. He asserted that the CA erred in failing to give evidentiary value to the medical report of his private doctor, arguing that the provisions of the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration-Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC) and the numerous rulings of the Court have established that the determination of the disability of a seafarer is not limited to the findings of the company-designated physician. “The entitlement of a seafarer on overseas employment to disability benefits is governed by the medical findings, by law and by the parties’ contract.”[18] Section 20B[19] of the POEA-SEC laid out the procedure to be followed in assessing the seafarer’s disability in addition to specifying the employer’s liabilities on account of such injury or illness. The same provision also provides that the seafarer is not irrevocably bound by the findings of the company-designated physician as he is allowed to seek a second opinion and consult a doctor of his choice. In case of disagreement between the findings of the company-designated physician and the seafarer’s private physician, the parties shall jointly agree to refer the matter to a third doctor whose findings shall be final and binding on both.[20] A review of the records of this case shows that the pertinent provisions of the parties’ Collective Bargaining Agreement[21] are similar to those found in the 2000 POEA-SEC, that it is the finding of the company-designated physician which is controlling. If the doctor appointed by the seafarer disagrees with the assessment of the companydesignated physician, a third doctor may be agreed jointly between the employer and the seafarer. The third doctor’s finding shall be final and binding on both parties.[22] Apparently, this procedure was not availed of by Belmonte. As can be recalled, upon Belmonte’s repatriation on December 22, 2008, he was immediately examined by the company-designated physician on December 23, 2008. From then on, Belmonte was continuously checked up by the company-designated physician, and has also undergone physical therapy sessions. Indeed, Belmonte had been under examination and treatment with the necessary medical procedures by the company specialists. Clearly, the respondents attended to his health condition and shouldered his medical expenses, professional fees and costs of his therapy sessions. Thus, after two months of treatment from the date of repatriation, Belmonte was declared fit to return to work on February 17, 2009 by the company-designated physician. elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/58640 4/9