4/29/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly of his employment or that his working conditions increased the risk of contracting the ailment.[29] In this case, Enrique admitted that he had his physical examination at the UDMC on January 6, 1997, which was more than a month from his arrival in the Philippines, and his x-ray result showed that he had pneumonia/tuberculosis foci. Clearly, Enrique failed to comply with the required post-employment medical examination within 3 days from his arrival and there was no showing that he was physically incapacitated to do so to justify his non-compliance. Since the mandatory reporting is a requirement for a disability claim to prosper, Enrique's non-compliance thereto forfeits petitioners' right to claim the benefits[30] as to grant the same would not be fair to respondents. Petitioners try to justify Enrique's non-compliance with the post-employment medical examination by alleging that such requirement applies only if the seafarer is fully aware that he already has the illness upon his disembarkation but not when he is not aware of its existence as the symptoms have not yet manifested, as in this case. We find the argument unmeritorious. Petitioners' admission that no symptoms of Enrique's illness had manifested at the time of his arrival in the Philippines revealed that he indeed was not suffering of any ailment then, and was even in good health upon his arrival which even bolstered our earlier findings that he was repatriated due to the completion of his employment contract and not due to any medical reason. Moreover, the post-employment medical examination within 3 days from Enrique's arrival is required in order to ascertain his physical condition, since to ignore the rule would set a precedent with negative repercussions because it would open the floodgates to a limitless number of seafarers claiming disability benefits.[31] It would certainly be unfair to the employer who would have difficulty determining the cause of a claimant’s illness considering the passage of time. [32] In such a case, the employers would have no protection against unrelated disability claims.[33] Petitioners contend that considering Enrique was declared fit to work prior to his embarkation on board the vessel, but upon his x-ray examination on January 6, 1997 had pneumonia/tuberculosis foci, this circumstance would establish that he already had the illness while still on board the vessel as it was quite impossible for him to have acquired the illness only within 35 days upon his arrival in the Philippines on December 2, 1996. We do not agree. The fact that Enrique's pre-employment medical examination showed that he was fit to work would not necessarily follow that his illness was acquired during his employment as a seaman. To reiterate, there was no showing of any medical complaint from him while still on board the vessel. He also did not comply with the mandatory postemployment medical examination within 3 days from arrival in the Philippines where the designated physician could have evaluated his medical condition. More importantly, except for petitioners' bare allegation that Enrique could not have acquired his illness elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/56060 6/10