other abdominal trouble and high blood pressure, among others. Petitioner confirmed that he had never been afflicted with any illness, and the standard tests conducted on him yielded no significant findings, thus he had been declared fit to work.  He was assigned to serve on board the vessel M/V PaxPhoenix as able seaman for a period of nine (9) months.  On 5 August 2003, petitioner joined the crew of M/V Pax Phoenix and his employment on board the vessel was without any incident.  After the expiration of the term of petitioner’s contract, he signed off from the vessel on 15 May 2004 and was repatriated on 19 May 2004.  Upon his arrival in the Philippines, petitioner did not make any report of any ailment or injury allegedly suffered on board M/V Pax Phoenix.  On 9 September 2005 or almost fifteen (15) months after petitioner’s repatriation, he filed the Complaint before the Labor Arbiter.[11]             Respondents argued that there is no basis for petitioner’s claims under the POEA-SEC, as he did not suffer any work-related illness or injury during the term of his employment.  His repatriation was due to the expiration of his contract and not due to any medical reasons and, at no time did he report any illness allegedly suffered during his employment on board M/V Pax Phoenixand even after repatriation.  Section 20(B), paragraph 3 of the 2000 Amended Standard Terms and Conditions governing the employment of Filipino Seafarers provides that the seafarer must submit himself to a post-employment medical examination by a company-designated physician within three working days upon his return, and failure to comply with the mandatory reporting requirement shall result in his forfeiture of the right to claim the compensation and benefits for injury or illness.  Petitioner is not entitled to his claim for damages and attorney’s fees for the same is without basis.  Finally, respondents prayed that the Complaint be dismissed for lack of merit.[12]   The Labor Arbiter found ample justification to grant the claim for disability benefits of the petitioner and held:                      The proximity from the time complainant was repatriated on May 19, 2004 and the illness/urinary bladder stone which started its symptoms on May 20, 2004 or one day after complainant’s repatriation until all his illnesses were uncovered and he was declared unfit to work definitely shows that complainant incurred his illness while on board and during the effectivity of his contract as the urinary bladder stone could not develop overnight. This is bolstered by the fact that the complainant was employed by the respondent since 1994 to 2004 or for a period of ten years.