5/28/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly seafarer. The third doctor’s decision shall be final and binding on both parties. [emphasis ours] The glaring disparity between the findings of the petitioners’ designated physicians and Dr. Vicaldo calls for the intervention of a third independent doctor, agreed upon by petitioners and Simbajon. In this case, no such third-party physician was ever consulted to settle the conflicting findings of the first two sets of doctors. After being informed of Dr. Vicaldo’s unfit-to-work findings, Simbajon proceeded to file his complaint for disability benefits with the LA. This move totally disregarded the mandated procedure under the POEA-SEC requiring the referral of the conflicting medical opinions to a third independent doctor for final determination.[62] Dr. Vicaldo, too, is a medical practitioner not unknown to this Court, as he has issued certifications in several disability claims that proved unsuccessful.[63] In Philippine Hammonia, we have ruled that the duty to secure the opinion of a third doctor belongs to the employee asking for disability benefits.[64] We explained: The filing of the complaint constituted a breach of Dumadag’s contractual obligation to have the conflicting assessments of his disability referred to a third doctor for a binding opinion. The petitioners could not have possibly caused the non-referral to a third doctor because they were not aware that Dumadag secured separate independent opinions regarding his disability.[65] [emphasis ours] Similarly, we note that Simbajon was the only one who knew of the conflicting results between Dr. Vicaldo’s findings with that of the petitioners’ designated physicians. The petitioners had no reason to consider a third doctor because they were not aware that Simbajon secured a separate independent opinion regarding his disability. Thus, the obligation to comply with the requirement of securing the opinion of a neutral, thirdparty physician rested on Simbajon’s shoulders. By failing to observe the required procedure under the POEA-SEC, he clearly violated its terms, i.e., the law between the parties. And without a binding third-party opinion, the fit-to-work certification of petitioners’ designated physicians prevails over that of Dr. Vicaldo’s unfit-to-return-towork finding. Lastly, we have observed that Dr. Vicaldo only examined Simbajon once. We take this is in comparison with the series of tests and treatments made by Magsaysay’s designated physicians to Simbajon. Between the two, the latter’s medical opinion deserves more credence for being more thorough and exhaustive. Simbajon is not entitled to permanent and total disability benefits We now resolve Simbajon’s claim that his inability to resume his usual work as a cook elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/57289 8/16