6/5/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly as extensively discussed by the CA above, effectively served to corroborate Serna's claim on the visit's purpose, i.e., to seek medical assistance. Under these circumstances, we find no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the NLRC when it affirmed the labor arbiter ruling and gave credence to Serna on this point. Under the evidentiary rules, a positive assertion is generally entitled to more weight than a plain denial. (Emphasis supplied) There, Serna (the seafarer) claimed that he reported to his employer's office on July 14, 1999, or two days after his repatriation, to submit himself to the mandatory reporting requirement. The Court found his allegation credible in light of the fact that despite the nonchalant instruction given to him by his agency to wait for a referral to the company-designated physicians, Serna took it upon himself to seek medical assistance and submit to a check-up with his personal physician to find out what was wrong with him. Indeed, about two weeks from the time he reported for the mandatory reporting requirement and was told to wait for a referral, Serna's check-up with his private physician revealed that he was suffering from toxic goiter. Several days later, he submitted to a medical examination conducted by the company-designated physician who diagnosed him with atrial fibrillation and declared him unfit to work. Still, Serna did not stop there. He continued with his medical treatment with his personal physician and even asked for a second opinion from another doctor who concurred with the toxic goiter diagnosis of his first personal physician. Further, he was examined by a third doctor who found that he had a history of goiter with throtoxicos since 1999. He was also diagnosed with thyrotoxic heart disease, chronic atrial fibrillation and hypertensive cardiovascular disease. Ultimately, Serna was given a disability rating of Grade 3 classified as permanent medical unfitness which entitled him to 100% compensation as provided for under the collective bargaining agreement. Verily, the above steps taken by Serna helped establish his claim that he complied with the mandatory reporting requirement and that he sought medical assistance from his employer, and further, that he did so within the period required by law. His having been vigilant in asserting his rights to medical assistance tended to show the same. Unfortunately in this case, petitioners failed to show the steps supposedly undertaken by Delfin to comply with the mandatory reporting requirement. To the Court's mind, this lapse on petitioners' part only demonstrates that Delfin did not comply with what was incumbent upon him. The reasonable conclusion, therefore, is that at the time of his repatriation, Delfin was not suffering from any physical disability requiring immediate medical attendance. Otherwise, and even if his request for medical assistance went unheeded, he would have submitted himself for check-up with his personal physician. After all, the injury complained of by Delfin was a serious one and it would seem illogical for him to just suffer in silence and bear the pain for a considerable length of time. Moreover, while the rule on mandatory reporting requirement is not absolute as a seafarer may show that he was physically incapable to comply with the same by submitting a written notice to the agency within the same three-day period, nowhere in the records does it show that Delfin submitted any such notice. Clearly, petitioners failed to show that Delfin complied with the mandatory reporting requirement. Thus, he is deemed to have forfeited his right to claim disability benefits and sickness allowance. elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/60112 9/16