5/28/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly If a doctor appointed by the seafarer disagrees with the assessment, a third doctor may be agreed jointly between the Employer and the seafarer. The third doctor’s decision shall be final and binding on both parties. x x x x (Emphasis ours) Clearly, there was a breach by Dr. Lim of his obligation as the company-designated physician. Although Libang repeatedly argued that Dr. Lim failed to give an assessment of his illness, herein respondents and Dr. Lim failed to explain and justify such failure. In Kestrel Shipping Co., Inc. v. Munar,[43] the Court emphasized that the companydesignated physician is expected to arrive at a definite assessment of the seafarer’s fitness or permanent disability within the 120 or 240 days, as the case may be; otherwise, he shall be deemed totally and permanently disabled.[44] The Court shall, nonetheless, not make such a declaration in this case because by Libang’s plea for a reinstatement of the labor tribunals’ rulings, he was of the position that his disability was not total and permanent. Given the failure of Dr. Lim to fully evaluate Libang’s illness, disability or fitness to work, the seafarer was justified in seeking the medical expertise of his physician of choice. The NLRC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in considering Dr. Vicaldo’s assessment. As against an incomplete evaluation by Dr. Lim, the medical certificate issued by Dr. Vicaldo included a determination of the disability grade that applied to Libang’s condition. Libang was diagnosed to have both Hypertensive Cardiovascular Disease and Diabetes Mellitus with an Impediment Grade VI.[45] He was declared to be unfit to resume to work as a seafarer in any capacity. The alleged severity of Libang’s illnesses could be linked with Dr. Lim’s statement that Libang’s hypertension was “severe”[46] and that he “ha[d] been under the care of [a] cardiologist, neurologist and endocrinologist.”[47] Dr. Lim had not declared Libang to be fit to work or covered by any disability grade. It is then clear that the finding of Dr. Vicaldo did not contradict any opposing view from Dr. Lim on disability grade or fitness. In denying Libang’s claim, the CA relied solely on Section 32-A (20) of the POEA-SEC which requires that a finding of essential hypertension be substantiated by diagnostic and laboratory reports. Section 32-A (20) was, however, never invoked by the respondents during the proceedings before the LA, NLRC and the CA. Moreover, it is settled that strict rules of evidence are not applicable in claims for compensation and disability benefits.[48] The respondents could not be allowed to benefit from their physician’s inaction or refusal to disclose the results of the diagnostic tests performed upon Libang, the extent of the patient’s illnesses, and the effect of the severity of these illnesses on his fitness or disability. The respondents even failed to sufficiently dispute the finding of the LA and NLRC that Libang’s illnesses had resulted in a Grade VI disability. All told, the labor tribunals acted reasonably when they relied upon the findings of Dr. Vicaldo. The CA then erred in holding that the NLRC acted with grave abuse of elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/57645 9/13