The one sentence your contract turns on
Every Filipino seafarer sails under the POEA-SEC, the standard employment contract for overseas seafarers. It lets you consult your own doctor, and it says what happens when that doctor contradicts the company-designated physician. Reproducing the 2010 POEA-SEC in Bunayog v. Foscon Shipmanagement, Inc. (G.R. No. 253480, April 25, 2023, En Banc), the Supreme Court quoted the clause:
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.
Read quickly it looks optional. It is not. (The contract is quoted as reproduced in the Court's decision, which is how its text reaches this page.)
What skipping the referral costs: Dumadag
In Philippine Hammonia Ship Agency, Inc. v. Dumadag (G.R. No. 194362, June 26, 2013) the seafarer was certified fit to resume sea duties, consulted four doctors of his own, and sued on their reports without asking for a third doctor:
The filing of the complaint constituted a breach of Dumadag's contractual obligation to have the conflicting assessments of his disability referred to a third doctor for a binding opinion. The petitioners could not have possibly caused the non-referral to a third doctor because they were not aware that Dumadag secured separate independent opinions regarding his disability. Thus, the complaint should have been dismissed, for without a binding third opinion, the fit-to-work certification of the company-designated physician stands, pursuant to the POEA-SEC and the CBA.
He was not faulted for the second opinions; the decision says there is nothing inherently wrong with them. The fatal act was order — he “pre-empted the mandated procedure” by filing first. Starting the referral is the seafarer's job, and Bunayog says so:
The duty to secure the opinion of a third doctor belongs to the employee asking for disability benefits. He must actively or expressly request for it.
The current procedure: the Bunayog guidelines
In 2023 the Court, En Banc, turned that duty into a dated procedure laid down for future cases. The first two guidelines define a valid request:
First, a seafarer who receives a contrary medical finding from his or her doctor must send to the employer, within a reasonable period of time, a written request or demand to refer the conflicting medical findings of the company designated physician and the seafarer's doctor of choice to a third doctor, to be mutually agreed upon by the parties, and whose findings shall be final and binding between the parties.
Second, the written request must be accompanied by, or at the very least, must indicate the contents of the medical report or medical abstract from his or her doctor, to be considered a valid request. Otherwise, the written request shall be considered invalid and as if none had been requested.
The fourth puts the employer on a clock:
Fourth, in case of a valid written request from the seafarer for a third doctor referral, the employer must, within 10 days from receipt of the written request or demand, send a written reply stating that the procedure shall be initiated by the employer. After a positive response from the employer, the parties are given a period of 15 days within which to secure the services of a third doctor and an additional period of 30 days for the third doctor to submit his/her assessment. The assessment of the third doctor shall be final and binding.
The rest govern what follows. An employer who ignores a valid request, refuses it, or assents only beyond the 10 days violates the POEA-SEC, and the seafarer may then sue (fifth). Where no valid request was made, the company physician's findings are held final unless shown to be biased (third). Once a complaint is filed the Labor Arbiter allows 15 days to secure a third doctor and 30 more for the assessment (sixth). If that fails through the employer's fault, the seafarer's own physician may be held conclusive; if through the seafarer's, the company assessment controls (seventh).
New law: Section 57 of RA 12021
The Magna Carta of Filipino Seafarers, Republic Act No. 12021, approved September 23, 2024, is recent law and it changes practice. Section 57 provides:
A seafarer who disagrees with the company-designated physician's final assessment may seek its re-evaluation by a physician of choice who specializes in the illness or injury. If the seafarer's doctor issues a disability grading that is different or contrary to the medical findings of the company-designated physician, the seafarer must file, within thirty (30) days from receipt of the findings of the seafarer's doctor, a written request with the DMW to refer to conflicting medical grading to a third doctor. The third doctor shall be mutually selected by the employer and seafarer from a pool of DOH-accredited medical specialists relevant to the injury or illness of the seafarer.
And it makes the referral a condition precedent:
This process shall be mandatory before any dispute settlement, arbitration proceeding, or case may be filed, when the issue is the disability grading, fitness to work, or the illness or injury of the seafarer.
Two things follow. The window is a hard thirty days from receipt of your own doctor's findings, stricter than Bunayog's “reasonable period of time.” And the section names the DMW where the decisions and the contract say POEA, while directing the DMW and the DOH to issue joint implementing guidelines — so where a request is lodged today is worth confirming first. Until that settles, satisfy both Bunayog and Section 57.
What to do the week you get a contrary opinion
- Write down every date: repatriation, first consultation, follow-ups, and the day each assessment reached you. The 120 and 240-day rule explains why dates decide cases.
- Send a written request for referral to a third doctor mutually agreed upon.
- Attach your doctor's report or abstract, or set out its contents in the letter.
- Keep proof of sending and receipt, and a copy of everything you sign.
- Bring all of it to counsel before filing anything.
None of this guarantees an outcome — in Dumadag, and in Bunayog itself, the seafarer lost. What it protects is your right to have the medical dispute decided on its merits, not on a technicality. Bring your papers and book a consultation.
Frequently asked
Who has to ask for the third doctor?
You do. Bunayog v. Foscon Shipmanagement, Inc. (2023, En Banc) holds that the duty to secure the opinion of a third doctor belongs to the employee asking for disability benefits, and that he must actively or expressly request for it.
What if I file a case without asking for a third doctor?
In Philippine Hammonia Ship Agency, Inc. v. Dumadag (2013) the Supreme Court held the complaint should have been dismissed: without a binding third opinion, the fit-to-work certification of the company-designated physician stands.
Does the request have to be in writing?
Yes, and under the Bunayog guidelines it must be accompanied by, or at least indicate the contents of, the medical report or abstract from your own doctor. Otherwise it is treated as if no request had been made.
Has the law on this changed recently?
Yes. Section 57 of Republic Act No. 12021, approved September 23, 2024, requires a written request with the DMW within thirty days of receiving your own doctor's findings, and makes the referral mandatory before a case may be filed.