6/5/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly doctor-of-choice and the third doctor selected under Section 20-B(3) of the POEA-SEC found otherwise and declared him unfit to work; (g) the company-designated physician declared him totally and permanently disabled but the employer refuses to pay him the corresponding benefits; and (h) the company-designated physician declared him partially and permanently disabled within the 120-day or 240-day period but he remains incapacitated to perform his usual sea duties after the lapse of the said periods.[45] (Emphasis supplied) Certification of Fitness for Sea Service Neither was there a certification from the company-designated physician as to Carcedo’s fitness for sea service. Dr. Cruz’s 24 March 2009 report on the disability grading of Carcedo did not include a certification that he was already fit for sea duty. And even if it had, it would be belied by his subsequent reports on, and the fact of, the continuation of medical treatments and hospitalization of Carcedo after the issuance of the 24 March 2009 report. However, in Respondents’ Reply to Complainant’s Position Paper, they wrote: xxxx b. Medical Director and PEME doctor Dr. Fe Bacungan clearly opined that complainant’s amputated right big toe will not in any way interfere with his current position as Chief Officer on board. c. Another PEME doctor Dr. Pascualito Gutay likewise opined that complainant’s current condition will not render him unfit for further sea duties as Chief Officer onboard. x x x x[46] The Court of Appeals considered the opinions of Dr. Bacungan and Dr. Gutay as fit for sea duty declarations of respondents’ designated physicians. We disagree. These opinions are not the certifications of fitness for sea duty contemplated by the CBA and the POEA-SEC. First, Dr. Bacungan and Dr. Gutay were not the company-designated physicians assigned to the care of Carcedo. Second, they were given in response to a hypothetical inquiry by respondents’ counsel.[47] Third, neither doctor examined Carcedo in coming up with their opinions. As discussed above, the determination of the fitness of a seafarer for sea duty is the province of the company-designated physician, subject to the periods prescribed by law. Hence, we also disagree with the NLRC’s giving credence to the declaration of Dr. Raymundo that Carcedo was unfit to work as a seaman. Carcedo consulted Dr. Raymundo more than nine months since repatriation, and four elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/59949 12/19