1/4/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly The company-designated doctors' declaration of respondent's fitness to work beyond the 120-day period, or specifically on the 154th day, will likewise not work in favor of respondent's case. Contrary to the NLRC's findings, the records clearly show that the company doctors had sufficient justification for extending the issuance of its final assessment beyond the 120-day period, i.e., further medical treatment and observation were still necessary. The NLRC and the CA failed to consider that respondent underwent a surgery for his left ear on February 25, 2010 and that almost three months recovery period was needed before respondent underwent the same procedure for his right ear on May 14, 2010. Respondent's treatment did not stop after said last surgery, which notably, was on the 99th day after his repatriation. Records also reveal that five to seven weeks after said surgery, respondent was still under observation and medication for his full recovery.[43] Clearly, thus, respondent's treatment necessarily went beyond the 120day period. Hence, contrary to the NLRC's findings, the 240-day extension period applies in this case. Notably, the company-designated doctors' assessment of respondent's fitness to work fell on the 154th day, which is well-within the 240-day extension. It is noteworthy that respondent never raised any question as to the companydesignated doctors' findings and declaration of his fitness to go back to work until after two years when he filed the complaint. In fact, respondent was able to obtain reemployment for the same position albeit, from a different principal/manning agency. The NLRC and the CA erred in disregarding such fact merely because said reemployment came only a year after he was declared fit to work by the companydesignated doctors. To be sure, there was neither allegation nor proof to relate such delay in re-employment to the illness subject of his repatriation. On the contrary, such delay bolsters the fact that the company-designated doctors did not err when they declared respondent fit to work after 154 days of treatment and medication as it shows that even a year after said company-designated doctors' final assessment, respondent was able to pass the pre-employment medical examination to get another employment as an Able Seaman from another company. It only demonstrates that the companydesignated doctors successfully treated him of the illness subject of his repatriation, contrary to his claim. Further, it took respondent two years and another re-employment before he consulted an independent doctor to question the company-designated doctors' declaration of his fitness to work. Such belated assessment issued by the independent doctor cannot prevail over the final assessment made by the company-designated doctors who observed and treated respondent since his repatriation up to his recovery. What is more, respondent's failure to comply with the procedure under Section 20(B) (3) of the POEA-SEC in disputing the company-doctors' final assessment justifies the disregard of the independent doctor's assessment and reliance upon that of the company-designated doctors.' The referral to a third doctor is a mandatory procedure which necessitates from the provision that it is the company-designated doctor whose assessment should prevail.[44] Simply stated, if the company-designated doctor https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65696 9/13