G.R. No. 228684. March 06, 2019

G.R. No. 228684. March 06, 2019
Edmund C. Mawanay Vs. Philippine Transmarine Carriers, Inc., et al.
http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/65007
Justice Jose Reyes Jr. 
Notably, the conflicting opinions of the two physicians as to the type of illness the petitioner is suffering highlights even more the importance of seeking the opinion of a third doctor. As between the two opinions nonetheless, even setting the mandatory procedure aside, the Court still finds the assessment and the disability rating by the company-designated physician to be more worthy of belief and credence. The Court, in making such conclusion, is particularly mindful of the efforts exerted by the company-designated physician to examine, diagnose, and treat the petitioner. It was the company-designated physician who initially attended to the petitioner after repatriation, the one who referred him to the proper medical specialists, and consistently monitored his progress until he was eventually declared lit to work on March 5, 2014. Ultimately, the certification issued by the company-designated physician is based on medical records obtained after a lengthy and thorough examination of the petitioner. In contrast, the assessment relied upon by the petitioner from his own physician was issued five months after the company-designated physician's assessment and only after one consultation/examination. This brings legitimate doubts as to the accuracy of the diagnosis issued by the petitioner's physician. For these reasons, the Court cannot merely set aside the company-designated physician's findings in lieu of that issued by the petitioner's doctor.
WHEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing disquisitions, the instant petition for review on certiorari is DENIED. The Decision dated June 8, 2016 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 143132, and its and Resolution dated October 17, 2016, are hereby AFFIRMED.