6/7/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly demonstrating that the working conditions on board the vessel "M/V Foxhound" served to cause or worsen his illnesses. Thus, on the basis of the foregoing discussions, the LA and the NLRC correctly ruled that Ernesto is not entitled to any disability compensation. The Court commiserates with Ernesto, but absent substantial evidence from which reasonable basis for the grant of benefits prayed for can be drawn, the Court is left with no choice but to deny his petition, lest an injustice be caused to his employer. Otherwise stated, while it is true that labor contracts are impressed with public interest and the provisions of the POEASEC must be construed logically and liberally in favor of Filipino seamen in the pursuit of their employment on board ocean-going vessels, still the rule is that justice is in every case for the deserving, to be dispensed with in the light of established facts, the applicable law, and existing jurisprudence.[34] However, the Court takes careful note of the fact that evidence on record would show that the evaluation made by the company-designated physic!with respect to Ernesto's medical condition was not completed. In fact, in his December 9, 2013 letter addressed to petitioner, the Medical Director who was handling Ernesto's case did not make a report of the final assessment of his medical condition owing to the fact that they are still awaiting the results of the CT angiogram done on him, although the said Medical Director indicated that "initial reading of the angiogram shows a potential problem which needs more investigation."[35] Thus, as noted by the CA, "Dr. Teves failed to make a complete assessment of Yamson's health condition or disability or fitness to work."[36] Under Section 20 of the 2010 Amended Standard Terms and Conditions Governing the Overseas Employment of Filipino Seafarers On-Board Ocean-Going Ships, failure of the seafarer to comply with the mandatory reporting requirements as prescribed by the company-designated physician would result in the forfeiture of the right to claim, among others, sickness allowance and reimbursement of medical and transportation expenses incurred as a result of the seafarer's continued treatment. In this regard, petitioner contends that it was Ernesto's fault that he failed to complete his postemployment medical examination when, after being discharged from the hospital on December 13, 2013, he no longer reported to the company-designated doctor on the dates prescribed by the latter for his continued medical evaluation. On the other hand, Ernesto retorted by claiming that petitioner is actually at fault because it left him with no other choice but to consult a doctor of his own considering that upon his "return to Manila Doctor's [Hospital] for a follow-up check-up after he was discharged and was already treated as an out-patient, a nurse informed him and his wife that he was taken off his status as an out-patient and in fact his account with the hospital was already closed by the Petitioner."[37] A perusal of the records at hand would, however, show that both parties failed to present substantial evidence to prove their respective allegations. Thus, in the absence of proof, the above claims of both parties are considered mere self-serving assertions which cannot be given credence. It has been ruled, time and again, that self-serving and unsubstantiated declarations are insufficient to establish a case before quasi-judicial bodies where the quantum of evidence required to establish a fact is substantial evidence.[38] Since the parties failed to substantiate their allegations, the Court cannot, with sufficiency and finality, elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/64139 10/14