6/7/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly which, he is "physically unfit to go back to work." However, as found by the LA and the CA, aside from the above Medical Certificate, petitioner failed to present competent evidence to prove that he was thoroughly examined by Dr. Jacinto. No proof was shown that laboratory or diagnostic tests or procedures were taken. In fact, Dr. Jacinto did not specify the medications he prescribed and the type of medical management he made to treat petitioner's condition. Dr. Jacinto did not even explain nor justify his conclusions that petitioner's hypertension started at work, is essential and work-related and that, by reason of such illness, petitioner is no longer fit to work. Dr. Jacinto also indicated therein that petitioner "was under [his] service during the period from May 2012 to present."[50] However, a cursory reading of the said Medical Certificate would show that the same was issued on May 7, 2012. This only proves that, at the time the said Medical Certificate was issued, petitioner was under the care of Dr. Jacinto for not more than one week, without any indication as to the number of instances petitioner consulted him during that short period of time. In contrast, the various medical certificates and reports by the company-designated physicians were issued in a span of five (5) months of closely monitoring petitioner's medical condition and progress, and after careful analysis of the results of the diagnostic tests and procedures administered to petitioner while in consultation with his cardiologist. Hence, the Court finds no error in the ruling of the CA that the extensive medical attention that the company doctors gave to petitioner enabled them to acquire a more accurate diagnosis of petitioner's medical condition and fitness for work resumption compared to petitioner's chosen physician who who was not privy to his case from the beginning and appears to have examined him only once. In this regard, it bears to reiterate this Court's ruling in Monana v. MEC Global Shipmanagement and Manning Corporation, et al.,[51] which highlights jurisprudence that have given more weight to the assessment of the doctors who closely monitored and actually treated the seafarer, to wit: In Philman Marine v. Cabanban, this court gave more credence to the company-designated physician's assessment since "records show that the medical certifications issued by Armando's chosen physician were not supported by such laboratory tests and/or procedures that would sufficiently controvert the "normal" results of those administered to Armando at the St. Luke's Medical Center. . . [while] the medical certificate of the petitioners' designated physician was issued after three months of closely monitoring Armando's medical condition and progress, and after careful analysis of the results of the diagnostic tests and procedures administered to Armando while in consultation with Dr. Crisostomo, a cardiologist." Philman discussed as follows: In several cases, we held that the doctor who have had a personal knowledge of the actual medical condition, having closely, meticulously and regularly monitored and actually treated the seafarer's illness, is more qualified to assess the seafarer's disability. In Coastal Safeway Marine Services, Inc. v. Esguerra, the Court significantly brushed aside the probative weight of the medical certifications of the private physicians, which were based merely on vague diagnosis and general impressions. Similarly in Ruben D. Andrada v. Agemar Manning Agency, Inc., et al., the elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/63251 9/14