6/5/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly Contract. But such requirement is not absolute and admits of an exception, i.e., when the seaman is physically incapacitated from complying with the requirement. Indeed, for a man who was terminally ill and in need of urgent medical attention one could not reasonably expect that he would immediately resort to and avail of the required medical examination, assuming that he was still capable of submitting himself to such examination at that time. It is quite understandable that his immediate desire was to be with his family in Nueva Ecija whom he knew would take care of him. Surely, under the circumstances, we cannot deny him, or his surviving heirs after his death, the right to claim benefits under the law. (Emphasis supplied) In Interorient Maritime Enterprises, Inc. v. Remo,[18] we carved another exception, not found in the law, i.e. when the employer refuses to refer the seafarer to a companydesignated physician: What if the seafarer reported to his employer but despite his request for a post-employment medical examination, the employer, who is mandated to provide this service under POEA Memorandum Circular No. 055-96, did not do so? Would the absence of a post-employment medical examination be taken against the seafarer? Both parties in this case admitted that Lutero was confined in a hospital in Dubai for almost one week due to atrial fibrillation and congestive heart failure. Undeniably, Lutero suffered a heart ailment while under the employ of petitioners. This fact is duly established. Respondent has also consistently asserted that 2-3 days immediately after his repatriation on April 19, 1999, Lutero reported to the office of Interorient, requesting the required postemployment medical examination. However, it appears that, instead of heeding Lutero's request, Interorient conveniently prioritized the execution of the Acknowledgment and Undertaking which were purportedly notarized on April 20, 1999, thus leaving Lutero in the cold. In their pleadings, petitioners never traversed this assertion and did not meet this issue headon. This self-serving act of petitioners should not be condoned at the expense of our seafarers. Therefore, the absence of a post-employment medical examination cannot be used to defeat respondent's claim since the failure to subject the seafarer to this requirement was not due to the seafarer's fault but to the inadvertence or deliberate refusal of petitioners. (Emphasis supplied) In stark contrast, however, petitioner, in this case, despite his asseveration that his "Lumbar Spondylosis" worsened during his last • employment contract, did not submit himself to a post-employment medical examination. Moreover, petitioner's medical certification, albeit emphasized by the NLRC to have been issued by respondents' hospital, was issued only in April 2003, long after the last employment contract of petitioner had expired—in April 2002. elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/60102 11/15