4/9/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly (M) 03-11-2866-00.[14] After the submission of the parties’ respective pleadings, Labor Arbiter Virginia T. LuyaAzarraga dismissed the complaint in a Decision dated November 26, 2004. Noting that Tomacruz was a seafarer, the Labor Arbiter explained that as such, he was a contractual employee, whose employment was governed by the contract that he signed every time he was hired. Thus, the Labor Arbiter held, once the seafarer’s employment was terminated either by completion of contract or repatriation due to a medical reason or any other authorized cause under the POEA Standard Employment Contract (SEC), the employer was under no obligation to re-contract the seafarer.[15] Zeroing in on Tomacruz’s medical condition, the Labor Arbiter observed how he was given extensive medical attention by the company- designated physician, and how he was given medication from the time he was repatriated until he was declared fit to work. As such, the Labor Arbiter said that the company-designated physician’s assessment of Tomacruz’s medical condition should be more accurate than that of the subsequent doctor’s second medical opinion, which was not supported by sufficient evidence to warrant consideration.[16] Aggrieved, Tomacruz appealed this decision to the NLRC, on the grounds that the Labor Arbiter gravely erred in upholding the findings of the company-designated physician’s declaration that he was fit to work over his doctor of choice, who was an internal medicine practitioner; thus, was better qualified in determining his health condition.[17] Not impressed, the NLRC agreed with the Labor Arbiter and declared that the opinion of the company-designated physician, as the one with the sole accreditation by law to determine the fitness or unfitness of a seafarer under POEA SEC, should prevail over the second opinion of Tomacruz’s doctor of choice. The NLRC, citing “Vol. II, p. 664 of the book of Francisco on Evidence,”[18] added: When expert opinions differ, the care and accuracy with which the experts have determined the data upon which they based their conclusions are to be considered. Opinion testimony founded on facts within the knowledge and experience of the witness and supported by good reasons is likely to receive greater credence and carry more weight than a purely speculative theory or one which is rendered by person not qualified in the field about which they testify. Opinion of witnesses of accredited skill and experience who have formed their judgment from personal examination of the subject of controversy are generally more worthy of belief than those illicited by hypothetical questions which may or may not state all the fact necessary to a correct conclusion (20 American Jurisprudence 1056-1058)[19] On the above premise, the NLRC, on October 28, 2005, affirmed the Labor Arbiter’s elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/55083 3/15