5/28/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly 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.[8] (Emphasis supplied) Also, in Crew and Ship Management International, Inc. v. Soria,[9] the seafarer, Zosimo Soria, failed to comply with the three-day rule. However, this court relaxed this rule since Zosimo had a physical infirmity.[10] The other exception to the three-day rule is not patent from the POEA regulations but exists in doctrine. This is when the employer refuses to refer the seafarer to a company-designated physician. In Interorient Maritime Enterprises, Inc. v. Leonora S. Remo,[11] this court held: . . . 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 post-employment 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 head-on. This self-serving act of petitioners should not be condoned at the expense of our seafarers. Therefore, the absence of a postemployment 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.[12] (Emphasis supplied) I believe that the state of our exceptions even for a contractual obligation on the part of the employer is not sufficient. A physician does not test for all possible disease and injuries when a seafarer presents himself or herself for examination. The examination is limited to general standard operating procedures to test for the usual diseases expanded by the physician’s elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/57627 17/19