He next sought recourse via a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 65  with the Court of Appeals docketed as CA G.R. SP No. 101324.   In a Decision[19] dated 17 June 2008, the Court of Appeals denied the petition and affirmed the Resolutions of the NLRC dated 31 May 2007 and 31 August 2007.  In arriving at such disposition, the Court of Appeals ratiocinated:   [18] Petitioner failed to undergo the required post-employment medical examination by a company-designated physician.  Again, he allegedly consulted his own physician Dr. Guanlao, who issued a medical certificate on 18 August 2005, or after fifteen (15) months following petitioner’s repatriation to the Philippines following the expiration of his employment contract, with the diagnosis “Hypertension, stage 2, TB of left uretus, Cystolithiasis, Carpel Tunnel Syndrom, both hand” and the remark “GRADE 1 disability Permanent unfit for sea duty.”   As aforesaid, it is not disputed that petitioner failed to submit himself to a postemployment examination by a company-designated physician, the adverse consequence of which is non-entitlement to the benefits.  It bears stressing that it must be the company-designated physician who must declare that petitioner suffered a permanent disability, whether total or partial, due to injury or illness, during the term of the latter’s employment. A resort to a “third doctor” could only be had if the physician appointed by the seafarer disagrees with the assessment of the company-designated physician, and when such third doctor has been agreed jointly between the employer and the seafarer.  Therefore, it is of no moment that petitioner consulted Dr. Parco who prescribed medicines to him and thereafter he went to Dr. Pahutan of the Seamen’s Hospital who issued a Medical Certification with the diagnosis impression of “Periureteritis (L) distal Ureter, 2 to tuberculosis” and relation to work “Oriented”.  Petitioner also sought the opinion of Dr. Guanlao, who issued a Certification on 18 August 2005, viz:  “GRADE 1 disability permanent unfit for sea duty”.  The foregoing notwithstanding, petitioner utterly failed to undergo, within three working days from his return to the Philippines on 19 May 2004, any post-employment medical examination by a company-designated physician.      x x x x   Furthermore, it has been held that in connection with said Section 20-B of the POEA Standard Employment Contract, the employer could be held liable to the seafarer for disability benefits, if the latter could present proof that he acquired or contracted the injury or illness, which resulted to his disability, during the term of his contract. From these recent rulings, it could be gleaned that: Section 20-B of the POEA Standard Employment Contract refers not only to the seafarer’s right to claim medical treatment and sickness allowance but also to his right to claim disability benefits; and the injury or illness, which resulted to disability, was acquired during the term of the employment contract.  In the instant case, it has