4/29/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly company physician that he is already fit for work. Thus, the doctrine enunciated in Vergara is not applicable in the instant case. In any case, the bottomline is this: the certification of the company-designated physician would defeat petitioner’s claim while the opinion of the independent physicians would uphold such claim. In such a situation, the Court adopts the findings favorable to petitioner. The law looks tenderly on the laborer. Where the evidence may be reasonably interpreted in two divergent ways, one prejudicial and the other favorable to him, the balance must be tilted in his favor consistent with the principle of social justice.[34] Anent the question of whether or not petitioner is indeed entitled to disability benefits based on the findings and conclusions, not only of his personal doctors, but also on the findings of the doctors whom he consulted abroad, the Court rules in the affirmative. From the documents presented by the parties, it is apparent that in a message[35] to Elite, it was established that petitioner was already declared “not fit for duty” and was advised to be confined and undergo MRI treatment. Similarly, when petitioner was brought to the Ulsan Hyundai Hospital, South Korea on August 8, 2001 for his frozen right shoulder, he was again declared not fit for duty and was advised to be “signed off” for further physical therapy. Indeed, petitioner was repatriated to Manila and underwent physical therapy session with Dr. Periquet. However, still not feeling well, he underwent a series of treatment with Dr. Tan for his frozen right shoulder until December 1, 2001. Petitioner then consulted Dr. Santiago for neurologic evaluation on December 27, 2001. In Dr. Santiago’s Neurologic Summary,[36] it was indicated that petitioner developed right shoulder pains nine months before and that despite repeated physical therapy, it only provided petitioner temporary relief. Dr. Santiago was also of the impression that petitioner was afflicted with Parkinson’s disease and concluded that petitioner will no longer function as in his previous disease-free state. From the findings and prognosis of the rest of petitioner’s doctors who attended and treated him, petitioner already established that he is entitled to disability benefits. Indeed, the fact remains that petitioner injured his right shoulder while on board the vessel of Elite; that he received treatment and was repatriated due to the said injury; and was declared unfit for duty several times by the doctors who attended and treated petitioner abroad and in Manila. Clearly, the medical certificate issued by Dr. Campana cannot be given much weight and consideration against the overwhelming findings and diagnoses of different doctors, here and abroad, that petitioner was not fit for work and can no longer perform his duties as a seafarer. Also, contrary to the findings of the CA, petitioner was claiming disability benefits based on the injury he sustained while employed by the respondents, the mere inclusion of the findings that he has Parkinson’s disease will not negate such fact nor diminish his right to claim the said benefit from the respondents. The Court finds no cogent reason to depart from the findings of the Labor Arbiter, as affirmed by the NLRC, that petitioner is entitled to disability benefits corresponding to elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/55611 7/11