6/7/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly were continuously renewed, it can be said that he had spent much of his productive years with petitioners, his years of service certainly took a toll on his body, and he could not have contracted his illness elsewhere except while working for petitioners. Given that, and coupled with the evidence on record showing how [Balatero's] working conditions caused or aggravated his illnesses, We uphold the finding of the lower tribunals that [Balatero's] illnesses were work-related and/or work-aggravated. But even if We agree with the conclusion of the lower tribunals that [Balatero's] illnesses were work related, We hold that his claim for permanent disability benefits must fail. At this juncture, We point out that one of the assigned errors raised by the [respondents] was that assuming for the sake of argument that [Balatero's] illnesses were work-related, only the amount of US$20,900.00 corresponding to Disability Grading of 7 - Moderate residuals o[f] disorder was due the latter and nothing more. On the other hand, [Balatero] claimed that he consulted a second doctor because the company-designated physician declared him fit to work after his angioplasty and after being required to take maintenance medications. x x x [T]he pivotal question now that We think should be confronted is which findings should prevail: the findings of the company designated physician or the assessment by [Balatero's] personal physician that he was unfit for sea duties, hence, permanently disabled? A related question immediately follows - how are the conflicting assessments to be resolved? As previously stated, Section 20 (A) (3) of the 2010 POEA-SEC provides that if a doctor appointed by the seafarer disagrees with the assessment of the company-designated doctor, a third doctor may be agreed jointly between the employer and the seafarer, and the third doctor's decision shall be final and binding on both parties. Consequently, this referral to a third doctor has been held by the High Court to be a mandatory procedure as a consequence of the provision that it is the company designated doctor whose assessment should prevail. x x x[.] xxxx Moreover, We observe that the assessment made by [Balatero's] physicianof-choice was only issued after a one-time medical treatment. Also, a reading of the certification of [Balatero's] doctor would suggest that the same was bare of essential facts as to how the medical conclusions were arrived at. Aside from the fact that [Balatero] was examined once, no series of tests and treatments were likewise conducted to support the diagnosis of the latter's condition. Thus, We are of the view that such assessment cannot be given credence for being questionable and suspicious. x x x Accordingly, [Balatero] is entitled to receive disability benefits corresponding to the Grade 7 disability rating in view also of the fact that [the respondents] had manifested their willingness to pay [Balatero] the disability compensation in the amount of US$20,900.00 corresponding to elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/63152 5/17