Failure to validly challenge the

assessment by the company-designated

physicians; Assessment by the
company-designated physicians is
more credible.  
|||

Second opinion must be done AFTER the assessment by the company

designated physician

In the case of TRADEPHIL SHIPPING AGENCIES, INC. V. DELA CRUZ,

(G.R. No. 210307, February 22, 2017, 806 PHIL 338-357) the Supreme Court
has already elucidated the matter on when the assessment of the company-
designated physician must be validly challenged. In said case, the Court held
that the complainant therein failed to validly challenged the assessment of the
company-designated
Guided by the foregoing rules and jurisprudence, the Court is convinced
that Dela Cruz failed to comply with the aforementioned procedure which now
justifies the dismissal of his complaint. In the first place, an irregularity is
readily apparent in this case. Aside from the premature filing of his complaint,
it is beyond dispute that he consulted with his physician of choice before the
company-designated physician could issue a certification of fitness to work.
This is in clear breach of Section 20(B)(3) which essentially provides that
resort to a second opinion must be done after the assessment by the
company-designated physician precisely to dispute the said assessment.
While the seafarer has the right to seek a second opinion, the final
determination of whose assessment must prevail should be done in
accordance with the agreed procedure stated in Section 20(B)(3).
Further, for reasons known only to him, Dela Cruz refused to refer the
matter to a third doctor whose assessment would have been binding to all the
parties concerned. The Court has held that non-referral to a third physician,
whose findings shall be considered as final and binding, constitutes a breach
of the POEA-SEC. The referral to a third doctor is a mandatory procedure
which necessitates from the provision that it is the company-designated
doctor whose assessment should prevail. "In other words, the company can
insist on its disability rating even against a contrary opinion by another doctor,
unless the seafarer expresses his disagreement by asking for the referral to a
third doctor who shall make his or her determination and whose decision is
final and binding on the parties."
 For failure of Dela Cruz to comply with the mandatory procedure of
referral to a third doctor under Section 20(B)(3) of the POEA-SEC, the Court
has no other option but to declare that the company-designated doctor's
certification must prevail. After all, jurisprudence dictates that the assessment
of the company-designated physician, such as Dr. Lim's, which was arrived at
after several months of treatment and medical evaluation, is more reliable
than the assessment made by Dela Cruz's personal doctor, Dr. Jacinto, who
examined him only once on January 7, 2011.

The Supreme Court likewise echoed the above quoted pronouncement

in the case of  PASTOR V. BIBBY SHIPPING PHILIPPINES, INC., (G.R.
|||

No. 238842, [November 19, 2018]) where it emphasized that resort to a

second opinion must be done after the assessment by the company-
designated physician.

Anent the matter of compliance with the third doctor referral procedure,
Section 20 (A) (3) of the 2010 POEA-SEC provides that if a doctor appointed
by the seafarer disagrees with the assessment of the company-designated
physician, a third doctor may be agreed jointly between the employer and the
seafarer, and the third doctor's decision shall be final and binding on both. 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 disagreement 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.
It is noteworthy to point out at this stage that in the case of Tradephil
Shipping Agencies, Inc. v. Dela Cruz, the Court ruled that resort to a second
opinion must be done after the assessment by the company-designated
physician precisely to dispute the said assessment. Such assessment
from the company-designated physician, to reiterate, must be definite and
timely issued. Otherwise, there is no valid medical assessment to be
contested and it is the law that operates to declare a seafarer's resulting
disability to be total and permanent.
Corollarily, should the seafarer signify his intent to challenge the
company-designated physician's assessment through the assessment made
by his own doctor, the employer must respond by setting into motion the
process of choosing a third doctor who, as the 2010 POEA-SEC provides, can
rule with finality on the disputed medical situation. In such case, no specific
period is required by law within which the parties may seek the opinion of a
third doctor, and may do so even during the conciliation and mediation stage
to abbreviate the proceedings. 

In the even more recent case of Mangubat, Jr. v. Dalisay Shipping

Corp., (G.R. No. 226385, [August 19, 2019]) the Supreme Court again
reiterated its former pronouncement and cited the aforementioned case in
laying down the valid procedure of disputing the assessment of the company-
designated physician.

From the foregoing, after medical repatriation, the company-designated

physician must assess the seafarer's fitness to work or the degree of his
disability. After this, the seafarer may choose his own doctor to dispute the
findings of the company-designated physician, and if there is conflict, the
matter is referred to a third doctor, whose findings shall be binding on the
parties.
Jurisprudence has elaborated on the requirements for the validity and
procedure for disputing the assessment of the company-designated physician.
For the company-designated physician's assessment to be considered valid, it
must be timely made and must state the fitness or degree of disability of
the seafarer. 29
Once the company-designated physician has issued the valid
assessment, the seafarer may dispute it by referring to his own doctor, thus:
x x x resort to a second opinion must be done after the
assessment by the company-designated physician precisely to
dispute the said assessment. Such assessment from the company-
designated physician, to reiterate, must be definite and timely issued. x
x x 30 (Emphasis and italics in the original)
The seafarer has then the duty to signify his intent to challenge the
company-designated physician's assessment and, in turn, the employer must
respond by setting into motion the process of choosing the third doctor. As the
Court ruled in Pastor v. Bibby Shipping Philippines, Inc.: 31
Corollarily, should the seafarer signify his intent to challenge the
company-designated physician's assessment through the assessment
made by his own doctor, the employer must respond by setting into
motion the process of choosing a third doctor who, as the 2010 POEA-
SEC provides, can rule with finality on the disputed medical situation.
In such case, no specific period is required by law within which the
parties may seek the opinion of a third doctor, and may do so even
during the conciliation and mediation stage to abbreviate the
proceedings. 32
 |||  
|||

C.F. Sharp Crew Management, Inc. v. Santos, (G.R. No. 213731, [August 1,
2018])
Sec. 20 (A) (3) of the POEA-SEC provides for a mechanism to
challenge the validity of the company-designated physician's assessment:
If a doctor appointed by the seafarer disagrees with the
assessment, a third doctor may be agreed jointly between the
Employer and the seafarer. The third doctor's decision shall be final
and binding on both parties. 21
The referral to a third doctor is mandatory when: (1) there is a valid and
timely assessment by the company-designated physician and (2) the
appointed doctor of the seafarer refuted such assessment. 22
In INC Shipmanagement, Inc. v. Rosales, 23 the Court stated that to
definitively clarify how a conflict situation should be handled, upon notification
that the seafarer disagrees with the company doctor's assessment based on
the duly and fully disclosed contrary assessment from the seafarer's own
doctor, the seafarer shall then signify his intention to resolve the conflict
by the referral of the conflicting assessments to a third doctor whose
ruling, under the POEA-SEC, shall be final and binding on the parties. Upon
notification, the company carries the burden of initiating the process for the
referral to a third doctor commonly agreed between the parties. Further,
in Bahia Shipping Services, Inc. v. Constantino, 24 it was declared that:
In the absence of any request from Constantino (as shown by
the records of the case), the employer-company cannot be expected to
respond. As the party seeking to impugn the certification that the law
itself recognizes as prevailing, Constantino bears the burden of
positive action to prove that his doctor's findings are correct, as well as
the burden to notify the company that a contrary finding had been
made by his own physician. Upon such notification, the company must
itself respond by setting into motion the process of choosing a third
doctor who, as the POEA-SEC provides, can rule with finality on the
disputed medical situation. 25
In this case, petitioner's chosen physician, Dr. Donato-Tan, issued a
medical certificate indicating a total and permanent disability because of
hypertension and uncontrolled diabetes, which conflicted with the assessment
 of the company-designated physicians. Glaringly, respondent only presented
a lone medical certificate from Dr. Donato-Tan, which was in contrast with the
extensive and numerous medical assessment of the company-designated
physicians. Consequently, the credibility and reliability of Dr. Donato-Tan's
medical certificate is doubtful.  TIADCc

More importantly, respondent never signified his intention to resolve the

disagreement with petitioners' company-designated physicians by referring
the matter to a third doctor. It is only through the procedure provided by
the POEA-SEC, in which he was a party, can he question the timely medical
assessment of the company-designated physician and compel the petitioners
to jointly seek an appropriate third doctor. Absent proper compliance, the final
medical report of the company-designated physician must be upheld. Ergo, he
is not entitled to permanent and total disability benefits.

Failure to seek a second opinion is failure to invoke that third doctor procedure.
In the case of DE VERA V. UNITED PHILIPPINE LINES, INC., (G.R. No. 223246,
[June 26, 2019]) the Supreme Court held that failure to seek a second opinion prior to the filing
a complaint is also failure to seasonably invoke the third doctor procedure.
As already stated, De Vera failed to seek a second opinion prior to the filing of his
complaint. His failure to seasonably exercise his option to seek a second opinion necessarily
means that he also failed to observe the provisions of Section 20 (A) (3) of the 2010 POEA-SEC
regarding the appointment of an independent third doctor. De Vera clearly breached the
provisions of the 2010 POEA-SEC by his repeated failure to comply with the conflict-resolution
procedure laid down therein.
De Vera also failed to show any circumstance which could persuade the Court to
disregard the company-designated physicians' findings. Aside from the failed attempt to show
that the assessment by the company-designated physicians was not definite and could not be
equated to a fit to work assessment, there is no proof, not even a suggestion, which would show
that the company-designated physicians were biased in favor of the respondents.

Belated Second opinion

Jebsens Maritime, Inc. v. Pasamba, (G.R. No. 220904, [September 25, 2019]) Further, it
took respondent two years and another re-employment before he consulted an independent
doctor to question the company-designated doctors' declaration of his fitness to work. Such
belated assessment issued by the independent doctor cannot prevail over the final assessment
made by the company-designated doctors who observed and treated respondent since his
repatriation up to his recovery.
 What is more, respondent's failure to comply with the procedure under Section 20 (B) (3)
of the POEA-SEC in disputing the company-doctors' final assessment justifies the disregard of
the independent doctor's assessment and reliance upon that of the company-designated doctors.'
The referral to a third doctor is a mandatory procedure which necessitates from the provision that
it is the company-designated doctor whose assessment should prevail. Simply stated, if the
company-designated doctor declares the seafarer fit to work within the 120 or 240-day periods,
such declaration should be respected unless the doctor chosen by the seafarer and the doctor
selected by both the seafarer and the employer declare otherwise.