8/23/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly In this appeal, the petitioners submit that the CA erred in upholding the ruling of the NLRC based on the findings of the respondent's second physician, thereby disregarding Section 20-A(3) of the POEA-SEC that required the parties to jointly appoint a third physician in the event of the conflicting assessments between their respective nominated physicians. Ruling of the Court The appeal is meritorious. In upholding the decision of the NLRC,[12] the CA observed that the findings of Labor Arbiter and NLRC about the respondent being entitled to permanent total disability benefits were anchored on substantial evidence; that after the company-designated physician had given him the fit-to-work assessment, he had again undergone the PEME at Supercare, which provided medical services to the seafarers to be employed by the petitioners; that Supercare found him to be suffering from kidney stones and benign positional vertigo, thereby rendering him unfit to work as a seafarer; and that the fitto-work declaration by the company-designated physician was not reflective of the true state of health of the respondent. Given the provisions of the POEA-SEC, the Court disagrees with the observations of the CA. Under the POEA-SEC, when the seafarer sustains a work-related illness or injury while on board the vessel, his fitness or unfitness for work should be determined by the company-designated physician. However, if the physician appointed by the seafarer makes a finding contrary to that of the assessment of the company-designated physician, a third physician might be agreed upon jointly by the employer and the seafarer, and the third physician's decision would be final and binding on both parties. The Court has held in TSM Shipping Phils., Inc. v. Patiño[13] that the non-observance of the requirement to have the conflicting assessments determined by a third physician would mean that the assessment of the company-designated physician prevails.[14] According to C.F Sharp Crew Management, Inc. v. Taok,[15] a seafarer may have a basis to pursue his claim for total and permanent disability benefits under any of the following conditions, namely: (a) The company-designated physician failed to issue a declaration as to his fitness to engage in sea duty or disability even after the lapse of the 120-day period and there is no indication that further medical treatment would address his temporary total disability, hence, justify an extension of the period to 240 days; (b) 240 days had lapsed without any certification issued by the company designated physician; (c) The company-designated physician declared that he is fit for sea duty within the 120-day or 240-day period, as the case may be, elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65168 4/9