1/5/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly assessment of the company-designated physician, the former may procure a second opinion from a physician of his or her choice. In case of a conflicting assessment, the parties may resort to a third doctor. As stated, the company-designated doctors here gave petitioner a Grade 12 disability rating, while petitioner's chosen physician, Dr. Pascual, opined that petitioner was suffering from Stage 2 Hypertension and Coronary Heart Disease and concluded that he is "unfit to work as a seaman."[27] There is no dispute that petitioner was not referred to a third doctor, which fact eventually became the core issue here. Petitioner insists that private respondents had the duty to refer him to a third doctor. He claimed private respondents did not, as the latter even ignored him.[28] Private respondents, on the other hand, maintained they were never informed that petitioner consulted another doctor, much less, the findings of that doctor. Believing they had complied with their obligations to petitioner, they were surprised to have received a notice of the case from the labor arbiter's office.[29] In Dohle Philman Manning Agency, Inc. v. Doble,[30] the Court held that referral to a third doctor is mandatory in disability claims. There, the Court ruled that should the seafarer fail to comply therewith, he or she would be in breach, as a consequence, of the POEA-SEC, and the assessment of the company designated physician shall be final and binding. INC Navigation Co. Philippines, Inc., et al. v. Rosales[31] decreed that at this point, the matter of referral to a third doctor pursuant to the pertinent provision of the POEA-SEC is a settled ruling. Further, petitioner cannot demand that private respondents initiate the referral to a third doctor. For one, how could private respondents make the referral themselves when in the first place, petitioner had not even informed them or shown proof of such contrary assessment? Marlow Navigation Philippines, Inc., et al. v. Osias[32] further enunciates: In Carcedo, the Court held that "[t]o definitively clarify how a conflict situation should be handled, upon notification that the seafarer disagrees with the company doctor's assessment based on the duly and fully disclosed contrary assessment from the seafarer's own doctor, the seafarer shall then signify his intention to resolve the conflict by the referral of the conflicting assessments to a third doctor whose ruling, under the POEA-SEC, shall be final and binding on the parties. Upon notification, the company carries the burden of initiating the process for the referral to a third doctor commonly agreed between the parties." (Emphasis supplied) Here, there was nothing on record showing that petitioner had furnished petitioner with a copy of Dr. Pascual's findings and conclusions. Nor was there anything to show that he informed them of such contrary medical conclusion. Clearly, petitioner did not "fully disclose the contrary assessment" to private respondents as mandated under the https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65965 9/19