This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2015-09-21 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| The above pronouncement was reiterated in subsequent cases, particularly Veritas Maritime Corporation v. Gepanaga, Jr.;[64] Daraug v. KGJS Fleet Management Manila, Inc.;[65] Bahia Shipping Services, Inc. v. Hipe;[66] Magsaysay Maritime Corporation v. Simbajon;[67] and Ayungo v. Beamko Shipmanagement Corporation.[68] | |||||
|
2014-10-01 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| This referral to a third doctor has been held by this Court to be a mandatory procedure as a consequence of 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. We have followed this rule in a string of cases, among them, Philippine Hammonia,[21] Ayungo v. Beamko Shipmanagement Corp.,[22] Santiago v. Pacbasin Shipmanagement, Inc.,[23] Andrada v. Agemar Manning Agency,[24] and Masangkay v. Trans-Global Maritime Agency, Inc.[25] Thus, at this point, the matter of referral pursuant to the provision of the POEA-SEC is a settled ruling. | |||||