4/13/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly Antolino's motion for reconsideration having been denied, he comes before the Court praying for the reversal of the CA's decision and the reinstatement of the LA's award of total and permanent disability benefits. The Issue WHETHER OR NOT ANTOLTNO IS ENTITLED TO TOTAL AND PERMANENT DISABILITY BENEFITS The Court's Ruling The petition must be denied for lack of merit. Antolino's main argument is anchored on Hanseatic's failure to furnish him with the findings of Dr. Chua, the company-designated physician. Citing the Court's ruling in Gere v. Anglo-Eastern Crew Management Philippines, Inc.,[30] he stresses that it is the duty of the company-designated physician to give the seafarer a copy of his or her findings contained in a final and definite medical assessment. He asserts that failure to do so entitles the seafarer to total and permanent disability benefits on the ground that the employer had failed to observe the rudimentary requirements of due process.[31] Further, Antolino contends that the absence of a third doctor's opinion rendered the findings of his own physician, Dr. Magtira, conclusive on Hanseatic. He alleges that he had communicated to Hanseatic his intention to refer his case to a third medical expert. However, his request fell on deaf ears. Since the burden to procure the opinion of a third doctor fell on Hanseatic, the fact that it paid no attention to his request entails that the findings of the company-designated physician should not be afforded any weight.[32] Antolino's arguments fail to persuade. Essentially, the parties fault each other for breaching the provisions of the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC). Antolino blames Hanseatic for failing to comply with its duty to disclose the findings of its physician, as well as its duty to set in motion the third doctor procedure. For its part, Hanseatic accuses Antolino of abandoning his medical treatment. The outcome of this case will therefore depend on who was guilty of transgressing their obligations under the POEA-SEC. The Court finds that Antolino had unjustifiably abandoned his medical treatment, resulting in the forfeiture of his disability benefits. It has been said time and again that seafarers are our modern-day heroes,[33] contributing, as they do, to the Philippine economy in no small degree. It is therefore in keeping with the public interest that all efforts are undertaken to keep each and every Filipino seafarer in good health. For this reason, manning agencies are legally-bound to provide their sick and injured employees with proper and timely medical attention. https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/66178 5/12