1/5/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly As stated in jurisprudence, in case of non-observance by the seafarer of the third doctor referral provision in the contract, the employer can insist on the company-designated physician's assessment even against the contrary opinion by another doctor, unless the seafarer expresses his disagree1nent by asking for a referral to a third doctor who shall make a determination and whose decision shall be final and binding on the parties.[46] Securing a third doctor's opinion is the duty of the seafarer, who must actively or expressly request for it.[47] Contrary to the pronouncement made by the NLRC, the referral to a third doctor is mandatory.[48] Without referral to a third doctor, there is no valid challenge to the company-designated physician's findings. Ultimately, therefore, the companydesignated physician's findings in such a situation must be upheld over the findings of the personal doctor of the seafarer.[49] In the instant case, after the company-designated physician gave a final Grade 10 disability assessment, Buico consulted his own physician who opined that he was unfit to perform sea duty in whatever capacity with a permanent disability status. Thereafter, Buico filed a complaint against his employers without first expressly requesting the company for the referral of the matter to a third doctor. This failure by Buico to comply with the requirement of referral to a third doctor is tantamount to a violation of terms under the POEA-SEC. Consequently, without a binding third-party opinion, the final, accurate and precise findings of the companydesignated physician prevail over the conclusion of the seafarer's personal doctor. In light of the foregoing, the Court finds that the LA had correctly awarded Grade 10 disability benefits to Buico based on the disability grading given by the companydesignated physician. Further, in accordance with prevailing jurisprudence, the total monetary award in his favor shall be subject to an interest of 6% per annum from the finality of this Decision until full payment. WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated October 13, 2016 and Resolution dated March 31, 2017 of the Court of Appeals in CAG.R. SP No. 144772 are SET ASIDE. The Labor Arbiter's Decision dated June 30, 2015 is REINSTATED. The total monetary award shall be subject to the interest rate of 6% per am1um from the finality of this Decision until full payment. SO ORDERED. Peralta, C.J., (Chairperson), Caguioa, J. Reyes, Jr., Lazaro-Javier, Inting, JJ.,* concur * Stated as "Cruises" in some parts of the rolla and CA rollo. *Designated additional Member per Special Order No. 2726 dated October 25, .2019. https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65874 7/10