8/26/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly and permanently disabled but there is a dispute on the disability grading; (f) The company-designated physician determined that his medical condition is not compensable or work-related under the POEA- SEC but his 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 said periods.[65] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied) In this case, it is undisputed that Tiquio filed the complaint without the assessment of a third doctor reconciling the apparent conflicting assessments of his personal doctor and of the CDP. Clearly, he failed to comply with the prescribed procedure under the abovecited Section 20 (A) (3) of the 2010 POEA-SEC on the joint appointment by the parties of a third doctor, in case the seafarer's personal doctor disagrees with the CDP's assessment. In the recent case of Gargallo v. Dohle Seafront Crewing (Manila), Inc., [66] citing Veritas, the Court reiterated the well-settled rule that the seafarer's non- compliance with the mandated conflict-resolution procedure under the POEA-SEC militates against his claims, and results in the affirmance of the findings and assessment of the company-designated physician, thus: The [POEA-SEC] and the CBA clearly provide that when a seafarer sustains a work-related illness or injury while on board the vessel, his fitness or unfitness for work shall be determined by the company-designated physician. If the physician appointed by the seafarer disagrees with the company-designated physician's assessment, the opinion of a third doctor may be agreed jointly between the employer and the seafarer to be the decision final and binding on them. Thus, while petitioner had the right to seek a second and even a third opinion, the final determination of whose decision must prevail must be done in accordance with an agreed procedure. Unfortunately, the petitioner did not avail of this procedure; hence, we have no option but to declare that the company-designated doctor's certification is the final determination that must prevail.[67] Also, in Ayungo v. Beamko Shipmanagement Corporation[68] the Court considered as prematurely filed the complaint for disability benefits sans prior referral of the conflicting findings of the CDP and the seafarer's physician to a third doctor for final assessment, thus: https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65357 6/20