4/14/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly record that he contracted illness while onboard. There was no substantial evidence that he complied with the procedures prescribed under Section 20-B of the 2000 POEA-SEC. The allegation that he reported to Loadstar's office and requested for medical treatment on the third day after he was repatriated was unsubstantiated. Bare and unsubstantiated allegations do not constitute substantial evidence and have no probative value.[37] Besides, to sustain the refund of medical expense merely because of the proximity of the seafarer's hospitalization on the date that he signed-off puts into disadvantage a seafarer repatriated for medical reasons but denied the benefits under Section 20 of the 2000 POEA-SEC for his failure to comply with the procedural requirements provided therein. Basic is the rule that failure of the seafarer to comply with the mandatory reporting requirements would result in the forfeiture of the right to claim, among others, sickness allowance and reimbursement of medical and transportation expenses.[38] While the Court adheres to the principle of liberality in favor of the seafarer in construing the POEA-SEC, liberal constn1cti on is not a license to misapply our laws.[39] There are circumstances that warrant favoring labor over the interests of management but the scale should not be so tilted as to result in an injustice because the law, in protecting the rights of labor, authorizes neither oppression nor self-destruction of the management.[40] With respect to the award of overtime pay, "the correct criterion in determining whether or not sailors are entitled to overtime pay is not x x x whether they were on board and cannot leave ship beyond the regular eight working hours a day, but whether they actually rendered service in excess of said number of hours."[41] The rendition of overtime work and the submission of sufficient proof that said work was actually performed are conditions to be satisfied before a seafarer could be entitled to overtime pay. In short, the contract provision guarantees the right to overtime pay but the entitlement to such benefit must first be established.[42] No proof was presented by Erispe that he actually performed overtime work while onboard. Thus, there was no basis for the award thereof. Also, in the case of an illegally dismissed overseas worker, entitlement to fixed overtime pay equivalent to the unexpired portion of the latter's contract must first be established, otherwise the same cannot be allowed.[43] The CA therefore erred when it sustained the overtime pay awarded by the NLRC. WHEREFORE, the instant petition is PARTLY GRANTED. The December 3, 2014 Decision and October 21, 2015 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP Nos. 119213 and 119779 are MODIFIED to the effect that the grant of overtime pay and refund of medical expenses are DELETED while the grant of vacation leave benefits is REDUCED to cover only the unexpired portion of the contract. The award for Pablo P. Erispe, Jr.'s salaries for the unexpired portion of the contract plus attorney's fees is hereby AFFIRMED. https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/66175 7/10