1/5/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly him with Grade 12 disability, the same is not binding. He had the option of consulting a second physician of his choice. His chosen physician found him to be unfit for sea duties. In fact, as of October 24, 2013, he was still suffering from episodes of palpitation and skip beats. Also, his constant exposure to stress is a known risk factor of his illness. As he was cautioned not to expose himself to strenuous activities, hence, he could no longer resume his sea duties. From the time he was medically repatriated, he had not engaged in any occupation. More, contrary to the Court of Appeals' ruling, referral to a third doctor is not mandatory. In any case, the process of choosing and appointing a third doctor rests on private respondents, not on him. Private Respondents' Position[19] Private respondents assert that petitioner's arguments are a mere rehash of the matters already resolved by the Court of Appeals. Petitioner willfully concealed the fact of his previous illness. When he was asked during his PEME whether he got hospitalized due to or whether he was aware of any medical problems like hypertension and heart disease, petitioner answered in the negative despite knowing full well that he had been diagnosed with this illness and had in fact undergone coronary angiogram. For this, he was even prescribed with certain medications which he took for one (1) year. It was only when he got medically repatriated on May 26, 2013 that he essentially admitted to the company-designated doctors his past diagnoses. Being a pre-existing condition, therefore, petitioner's illness is non-compensable. Petitioner cannot also fault them for not securing copies of his past medical records. During the proceedings before the labor arbiter and the NLRC, they had repeatedly requested the labor tribunals to require petitioner's doctors to submit the latter's medical records. But the labor tribunals simply brushed aside their requests. In any case, the company-designated doctors had stated under oath what petitioner had told them regarding his past illness. Dr. Sy attested that petitioner showed her the result of his angiogram but did not give her a copy thereof. Jurisprudence teaches that notarized documents are accorded full faith and credence. Petitioner cannot invoke the doctor-patient privileged communication rule. This rule applies only to civil cases and not to labor cases. Also, the privileged communication only pertains to those that would "blacken the reputation of the patient" which is not the case here. Further, petitioner should have demanded referral to a third doctor instead of immediately filing the complaint below. As the Court of Appeals correctly held, referral to a third doctor is mandatory. More important, petitioner was not totally and permanently disabled. As proved by two (2) Overseas Filipino Worker (OFW) Information from the POEA, petitioner was subsequently engaged by TDG Crew Management Inc. in December 2016 and by Seacrest Maritime Management Inc. in December 2017.[20] https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65965 5/19