1/5/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly things could have happened in a span of six (6) months. Petitioner did not allege that he maintained his medications or followed a diet in order to prevent recurrence or aggravation of his hypertension and coronary artery disease. On this point, Normilito R. Cagatin v. Magsaysay Maritime Corporation, et al.[37] states: In contrast, petitioner presents the report of his own physician, Dr. Collantes, who examined him almost seven (7) months after he was declared "fit to work" by Dr. Cruz. The Court finds, however, that this later report by petitioner's chosen doctor is not as reliable as that of the company-designated physician. As respondents contend, it is unknown what transpired between January 15, 2002 (when petitioner was declared "fit to work" by the companydesignated physician) and August 9, 2002 (when he was declared "unfit to work at sea" by his own physician). It was petitioner's duty as claimant to enlighten the labor tribunals as well as the courts as to what transpired in these seven (7) months. Not having performed this duty, the Court agrees with the Court of Appeals that this non-disclosure should be interpreted against petitioner. The withholding of information as to what happened in the months between the time he was declared "fit to work" up to the time he was declared otherwise, or "unfit to work at sea," opens petitioner's claims to much speculation and conjecture, which makes the grant of his claims for disability benefits untenable. This lack of forthrightness on the part of petitioner impels this Court to favor the earlier report of the company-designated physician, Dr. Cruz, over that of petitioner's chosen physician, Dr. Cruz, over that of petitioner's chosen physician, Dr. Collantes. There are other cogent reasons, however. First, it is obvious in the report of Dr. Collantes that he only saw petitioner once, or on August 6, 2002, while Dr. Cruz and his team examined and treated petitioner several times, for a period of five (5) months. Second, Dr. Collantes did not perform any sort of diagnostic test or examination on petitioner, unlike Dr. Cruz before him. It has been held in cases of disability benefits claims that in the absence of adequate tests and reasonable findings to support the same, a doctor's assessment should not be taken at face value. Diagnostic tests and/or procedures as would adequately refute the normal results of those administered to the petitioner by the companydesignated physicians are necessary for his claims to be sustained. (Emphasis supplied; citations omitted) Montierro v. Rickmers Marine Agency Phils., Inc.[38] decreed: Further, a juxtaposition of the two conflicting assessments reveals that the certification of Montierro's doctor of choice pales in comparison with that of the company-designated physician. Fitting is the following discussion of the CA: https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65965 15/19