1/5/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly did not prescribe yet since his action was instituted within three years from his disembarkation from the vessel. To counter Apolinario's claim, respondents, on the other hand, argued that Apolinario finished his six-month POEA-approved employment contract in August 2010 without any medical issue whatsoever. They contended that since the filing of his Complaint was made five years after the completion of his contract in August 2010, his cause of action had already prescribed for not having been filed within the three-year prescriptive period. Moreover, respondents claimed that contrary to Apolinario's allegation, he actually failed to comply with the three-day post-employment medical examination requirement. As such, he cannot be entitled to his money claims, moral, compensatory and exemplary damages. The Ruling of the Labor Arbiter On October 30, 2015, the Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Apolinario and held that Apolinario's cause of action has not prescribed yet.[16] The Labor Arbiter explained that under Section 18 of the POEA-approved employment contract, the seafarer's contract with the employer is effective until the date of his arrival at the point of hire. Corollary thereto, the Labor Arbiter clarified that all claims arising from the contract should be made within three years from the date the cause of action arose. The Labor Arbiter concluded that since Apolinario's arrival at the point of hire was April 11, 2012, he had until April 11, 2015 within which to institute his action. Thus, he was able to institute his claim against respondents within the reglementary period when he filed his Request for Single Entry Approach (SENA) at the NLRC in March 2015. Moreover, the Labor Arbiter found that Apolinario, while on board, was exposed to physical and psychological stress due to rush jobs, lack of sleep and homesickness. Inasmuch as stress can prompt an increase in the level of one's blood sugar, the Labor Arbiter found nexus between Apolinario's nature of work and his ailment diabetes mellitus. Lastly, the Labor Arbiter gave more weight to Apolinario's allegation that he actually requested to undergo the required post employment medical examination, but 88 Aces denied it on the ground that his repatriation was not for medical reasons, but due to the completion of his contract. Aggrieved, respondents elevated the case before the NLRC. The Ruling of the NLRC On January 28, 2016, the NLRC rendered a Decision[17] granting respondents' Appeal. In ruling for the Respondents and dismissing Apolinario's complaint, the NLRC ratiocinated that the findings of Apolinario's physicians cannot be accorded weight since their medical certificates were only issued on March 17, 2015 and June 15, 2015— about three years or more from Apolinario's repatriation on April 11, 2012. Lastly, the NLRC held that since Apolinario failed to establish that his illness was workrelated and that he requested for a post-employment medical examination, his claim for disability benefits must be denied. https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65782 3/14