6/7/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly the petitioner in Barros is a seafarer like Lloyd and that voluntary repatriation was put in issue are immaterial. The rule on burden of proof in illegal dismissal cases cannot be unduly applied in proving whether a seafarer was repatriated for medical reasons. At any rate, Lloyd's claim that he was medically repatriated is an affirmative allegation and the burden of proof rests upon the party who asserts and not upon he who denies it. The nature of things is that one who denies a fact cannot produce any proof of it.[24] Admittedly, Lloyd failed to discharge this burden and did not present substantial evidence as to the cause of his repatriation. Likewise, we observed that the CA heavily relied in Career Philippines Shipmanagement, Inc., in ruling that Lloyd was refused medical treatment. In that case, the CA, the NLRC and the LA speak as one in their findings that the seafarer reported to the company-designated physician within three working days from arrival in the Philippines. Also, it discussed instances where the award of disability benefits was sustained even if the seafarer had been assessed by a personal physician, thus: The labor arbiter, the NLRC, and the CA are one in finding that on July 14, 1999, or two days after his repatriation, Serna reported to the office of Career Phils, specifically to report his medical complaints, only to be told to wait for his referral to company-designated physicians. The referral came not on the following day, but nearly three (3) weeks after, on August 3, 1999. We see no reason to disturb the lower tribunals' finding, x x x xxxx The petitioners failed to perform their obligation of providing timely medical examination, thus rendering meaningless Scrna's compliance with the mandatory reporting requirement. With his July 14, 1999 visit, Serna clearly lived up to his end of the agreement; it was the petitioners who defaulted on theirs. They cannot now be heard to claim that Serna should forfeit the right to claim disability benefits under the POEA-SEC and their CBA. The Court has in the past, under unique circumstances, sustained the award of disability benefits even if the seafarer's disability had been assessed by a personal physician. In Philippine Transmarine Carriers, Inc. v. NLRC, we affirmed the grant by the CA and by the NLRC of disability benefits to a claimant, based on the recommendation of a physician not designated by the employer. The "claimant consulted a physician of his choice when the company-designated physician refused to examine him." In Cabuyoc v. Inter-Orient Navigation Shipmanagement, Inc., we reinstated the NLRC's decision, affirmatory of that of the labor arbiter, which awarded sickness wages to the petitioner therein even if his disability had been assessed by the Philippine General Hospital, not by a companydesignated hospital. Similar to the case at bar, the seafarer in Cabuyoc initially https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/66675 6/13