6/7/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly Contract provides that the seafarer shall forfeit these benefits. It said: Failure of the seafarer to comply with the mandatory reporting requirement shall result in his forfeiture of the right to claim the above benefits.[34] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied) Thus, in InterOrient Maritime Enterprises, Inc. v. Creer III,[35] the Court ruled that the respondent's non-compliance with the three-day rule on post-employment medical examination was fatal to his cause. As a consequence, his right to claim for compensation and disability benefits was forfeited. The Court ruled that the complaint should have been dismissed outright.[36] In the case at hand, the determination of whether or not the respondent did indeed present himself to the petitioners for medical treatment within three days from his disembarkation resulted to varying findings of facts among the LA, NRLC, and CA, which eventually germinated three different conclusions. In the LA decision, the LA found that the respondent did fail to comply with the requirement, but the LA found that "[t]here is justifiable cause for the failure to comply with the reporting requirement as the complainant was not medically repatriated."[37] In the same way, the NLRC likewise averred that the respondent failed to comply with the requirement, but contrary to the LA decision, it found no justifying cause thereto. Still, in yet another finding, the CA asserted that the respondent indeed presented himself before the petitioners and that "there is no denying this fact."[38] In light of these conflicting findings, the Court poured over the records of the case, and after a detailed study thereof, rules against the respondent. Aside from the self-serving allegations of the respondent in his pleadings, there is no evidence that would suggest that he presented himself before the petitioners upon disembarkation. Indeed, he presented no witnesses that would support his allegations. He did not even bother to tell the Court who it is that he talked with in the petitioners' office—if indeed he went to the petitioners' office—on the day of the meeting. He did not even relay how his request for medical treatment was supposedly refused, and by whom. No date was even alleged. To be sure, there was a conspicuous lack of details to his supposed meeting that it has failed to convince the LA, the NLRC, and even this Court of the truthfulness of this allegation. In addition, the LA decision which exempts him from the application of the mandatory reporting requirement has no leg to stand on. The POEA Contract is clear and admits of no exceptions, save from the instance when the seafarer is physically incapacitated to report to the employer. In which case, Section 20(A)(c) requires him to submit a written notice to the agency within the same period as compliance. This has not elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/63966 7/11