5/28/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly evidence.”[39] “The general principle is that one who makes an allegation has the burden of proving it. A party alleging a critical fact must support his allegation with substantial evidence. Any decision based on unsubstantiated allegation cannot stand as it will offend due process.”[40] Besides, as already emphasized by this Court, “in the absence of substantial evidence, working conditions cannot be accepted to have caused or at least increased the risk of contracting the disease x x x. Substantial evidence is more than a mere scintilla. The evidence must be real and substantial, and not merely apparent; for the duty to prove work-causation or work-aggravation imposed by law is real and not merely apparent.”[41] The Court cannot give credence to the medical certificate issued by Dr. Vicaldo. Records failed to show that the said medical certification, which declares Victor’s illness as work-aggravated, was supported by diagnostic tests and procedures. There was no explanation how the conclusions were arrived at. Neither was there any medical records or other sufficient proof presented that would support and validate the findings contained therein. At most, the said medical certificate is a mere summary and generalization of Victor’s ‘medical history and condition based on a one-time consultation. While it is true that “[p]robability and not ultimate degree of certainty is the test of proof in compensation proceedings[, i]t cannot be gainsaid, however, that award of compensation and disability benefits cannot rest on speculations, presumptions and conjectures.”[42] On the other hand, while the letter[43] of Dr. Ayuyao two months after Victor returned to the Philippines would suggest that the latter had developed pulmonary tuberculosis by then, the said letter still does not establish that the disease was work-related or work-aggravated. There is nothing on record that would establish the development of the illness as traceable to Victor’s employment. The Court cannot take at face value Victor’s bare allegations that he suffered incessant cough, nasal congestion, difficulty of breathing, and that he experienced physical weakness and chills while on board. Plainly, the claim is unsubstantiated. The Court cannot over-emphasize that “self-serving and unsubstantiated declarations are insufficient to establish a case x x x where the quantum of evidence required to establish as fact is substantial evidence.”[44] In fine, Victor’s claim for disability benefits must be denied for failure to comply with the mandatory three-day rule on post-employment medical examination without any valid or justifiable reason, and for being non-compensable there being no showing that the illness existed during the term of his employment contract or that it is work-related. As this Court has reiterated in a number of cases, it is “[w]ell aware of the principle that, consistent with the purposes underlying the formulation of the POEA [Contract], its provisions must be applied fairly, reasonably and liberally in favor of the seafarers, for it is only then that its beneficent provisions can be fully carried into effect. This exhortation cannot, however, be taken to sanction the award of disability benefits and elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/57627 10/19