1/5/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly 3. Upon sign-off from the vessel for medical treatment, the seafarer is entitled to sickness allowance equivalent to his basic wage until he is declared fit to work or the degree of permanent disability has been assessed by the company-designated physician but in no case shall this period exceed one hundred twenty (120) days. For this purpose, the seafarer shall submit himself to a postemployment medical examination by a company-designated physician within three working days upon his return except when he is physically incapacitated to do so, in which case, a written notice to the agency within the same period is deemed as compliance. Failure of the seafarer to comply with the mandatory reporting requirement shall result in his forfeiture of the right to claim the above benefits. If a doctor appointed by the seafarer disagrees with the assessment, a third doctor may be agreed jointly between the Employer and the seafarer. The third doctor's decision shall be final and binding on both parties. [Emphases supplied] As could be gleaned from the foregoing, a seafarer-claimant is mandated a period of three working days within which he should submit himself to a post-employment medical examination so that the company-designated physician can promptly arrive at a medical diagnosis. Due to the express mandate on the reportorial requirement, the failure of the seafarer to comply shall result in the forfeiture of his right to claim the above benefits.[31] Nevertheless, while the requirement to report within three working days from repatriation appears to be indispensable in character, there are some established exceptions to this rule: (1) when the seafarer is incapacitated to report to the employer upon his repatriation; and (2) when the employer inadvertently or deliberately refused to submit the seafarer to a post-employment medical examination by a companydesignated physician.[32] In Apines v. Elburg Shipmanagement Philippines, Inc. et al.,[33] the repatriated seafarer reported to the employer., He was, however, not referred to the companydesignated physician. The Court emphasized that the employer, and not the seafarer, has the burden to prove that the seafarer was referred to a company-designated doctor. Here, Apolinario avers that two days after his repatriation to Manila on April 11, 2012, he reported to the office of 88 Aces to get his unpaid wages and for him to be referred to the company designated physician. However, since his repatriation was due to the completion of his six-month POEA-approved employment contract, he was told by 88 Aces through Jocson that they could not shoulder his medical expenses. Having been denied to undergo the post medical examination, Apolinario just continued taking the medicine given to him by the doctor in Saudi Arabia. Between the two conflicting allegations from Apolinario and respondents, this Court is inclined to resolve the doubt in favor of Apolinario. Besides, the factual backdrop of the case supports Apolinario's allegation that he requested to be referred to a company designated physician. As aptly noted by the Labor Arbiter, Apolinario repeatedly https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65782 8/14