6/7/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly caused his illness or aggravated any pre-existing condition he might have had. Mere possibility will not suffice and a claim will still fail if there is only a possibility that the employment caused the disease.[84] Probability of work-connection must at least be anchored on credible information and bare allegations do not suffice to discharge the required quantum of proof,[85] as in this case. Moreover, the Court notes that even petitioner's physician of choice, Dr. Tan, failed to refute the company-designated physician's pronouncement that his illness was not work-related. In the Medical Certificate dated October 20, 2014, Dr. Tan merely reiterated petitioner's medical history of his illness and declared him permanently disabled on the justification that he would not be able to perform his job effectively, in view of the presence of the catheter that caused frequent episodes of urinary tract infection. It is significant to point out at this stage that in determining the workcausation of a seafarer's illness, the diagnosis of the company-designated physician bears vital significance given that the latter is mandated by the 2010 POEA-SEC to arrive at a definite assessment of the seafarer's fitness to work or permanent disability. And while the seafarer is not irrevocably bound by the findings of the companydesignated physician as he is allowed to seek a second opinion and consult a doctor of his choice, Section 20 (A) (3) thereof further provides that any disagreement in the findings may be referred to a third doctor jointly agreed upon by the parties, whose findings shall be final and binding between them. The Court has consistently held that non-observance of the requirement to have the conflicting assessments determined by a third doctor would mean that the assessment of the company-designated physician prevails.[86] Considering that petitioner failed to observe the conflict-resolution procedure provided under the 2010 POEA-SEC, the Court is inclined to uphold the opinion of the companydesignated physician that petitioner's illnesses were not work-related, hence, not compensable. Accordingly, no error can be imputed against the CA in granting respondents' certiorari petition as the findings and conclusions reached by the NLRC are tainted with grave abuse of discretion since the claim for disability benefits remains unsupported by substantial evidence. Verily, while the Court adheres to the principle of liberality in favor of the seafarer, it cannot allow claims for compensation based on whims and caprices. When the evidence presented negates compensability, the claim must fail, lest injustice be caused to the employer.[87] WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated March 1, 2016 and the Resolution dated July 4, 2016 of the Court of Appeals in CA-GR. SP No. 142802 are hereby AFFIRMED as afore-discussed. SO ORDERED. Carpio (Chairperson), Peralta, and Caguioa, JJ., concur. Reyes, Jr., J., on official leave. [*] "Elburg Shipmanagement Phils., Inc." in the rollo cover. elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/63721 7/13