6/5/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly Moreover, Rickmers exerted real efforts to provide Montierro with medical assistance. The company-designated physician monitored Montierro’s case from beginning to end. Upon the former’s recommendation, Montierro even underwent arthroscopic partial medical meniscectomy of his right knee. The company-doctor likewise gave him physical therapy. Lastly, he issued his certification on the basis of the medical records available and the results obtained. Further, a juxtaposition of the two conflicting assessments reveals that the certification of Montierro’s doctor of choice pales in comparison with that of the companydesignated physician. Fitting is the following discussion of the CA: To contest the company-designated physician's disability assessment of “Grade 10”, Montierro relied on the total permanent disability assessment of his physician of choice. In contrast to his physician's assessment embodied in a one-page medical certificate dated December 3, 2010 which did not even indicate any test or procedure that may have been performed or conducted when he examined and determined Montierro's disability, however, the company-designated physician's finding is entitled to greater weight and respect because it was arrived at after Montierro was regularly examined in coordination with other doctors, prescribed with medications, and given physical therapy and rehabilitation sessions from June 4, 2010 until January 3, 2011. In the face of these welldefined facts, We find it only reasonable, if not logical, to give credence to the company physician's finding rather than that of Montierro's physician of choice. Having extensive personal knowledge of the seafarer's actual medical condition, and having closely, meticulously and regularly monitored and treated his injury for an extended period, the company-designated physician is certainly in a better position to give a more accurate evaluation of Montierro's health condition. The disability grading given by him should therefore be given more weight than the assessment of Montierro's physician of choice.[37] Attorney’s fees On the premise that there was no showing of bad faith on the part of the employer, forcing Montierro to litigate, the CA dropped the award of attorney’s fees. We arrive at the same conclusion by using another route. Indeed, the general rule is that attorney's fees may not be awarded where there is no sufficient showing of bad faith in a party's persistence in a case other than an erroneous conviction of the righteousness of one’s cause.[38] The rule, however, takes a turn when it comes to labor cases. The established rule in labor law is that the withholding of wages need not be coupled with malice or bad faith to warrant the grant of attorney’s fees under Article 111 of the Labor Code.[39] All that is required is that lawful wages be not paid without elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/58779 6/9