6/7/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly Indeed, the schedule of disabilities in the CBA, if there is one, or the POEASEC, should be the primary basis for the determination of a seafarer's degree of disability. However, the POEA-SEC and the CBA cannot be read in isolation from the Labor Code and the AREC. x x x.[64] (Citations omitted, underscoring ours and emphasis in the original deleted) In Balatero's case, the company-designated doctor had made a final Grade 7 Disability Rating beyond 120 days from repatriation. In legal contemplation, such partial disability was by then already deemed permanent. As a result thereof, the issue of non-referral to a third doctor is rendered inconsequential. In Dalusong,[65] the Court instructed that in case no third doctor is appointed by the parties, the labor tribunal and the courts shall assess the inherent merits of the divergent findings of the company-designated doctor and the seafarer's chosen physician.[66] In the case at bar, Dr. Lara-Orencia had considered the tests and procedures done on Balatero, and the latter's health status then, noting his recurrent chest pains, easy fatigability and intake of a total of five maintenance medicines. Dr. Lara-Orencia related Balatero's conditions to the POEA SEC, which listed CAD and Uncontrolled Hypertension as occupational diseases, and the physical and psychological stress, to which a seafarer is exposed. Dr. Lara-Orencia then concluded that Balatero cannot return to his job as 3rd Officer.[67] In contrast, the respondents, in their pleadings filed with the Court, do not amply explain why the Grade 7 Disability Rating, which they issued, should instead prevail. Repeatedly, the respondents relied on the supposed conclusive character of the findings of the company-designated physicians, without explaining in substance how they were arrived at.[68] The CA, on the other hand, highlighted Balatero's non-compliance with the mandatory procedure of referral to a third doctor, and no longer considered the inherent merits of the conflicting medical assessments made by Dr. Olalia and Dr. Garrido, on one hand, and Dr. Lara-Orencia, on the other.[69] The Court notes too that as pointed out by Balatero, Department of Health (DOH) Administrative Order (A.O.) No. 2007-0025 recommends non-issuance of fit-to-work certifications to seafarers "with acute or chronic cardiovascular condition limiting physical activity, requiring more than two (2) maintenance oral medicines and close monitoring, or causing significant disability," specifically those (1) suffering from CAD, (2) has undergone Coronary Angioplasty within six months, with history of Uncontrolled Diabetes Mellitus, Hypertension and Dyslipidemia, and (3) Hypertension requiring three or more drugs, among others. Balatero falls within the foregoing category. It also bears stressing that jurisprudence[70] is replete with doctrines granting permanent total disability compensation to seafarers, who suffered from either cardiovascular diseases or hypertension, and were under the treatment of or issued fitto-work certifications by company-designated doctors beyond 120 or 240 days from their repatriation. elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/63152 10/17