8/26/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly Salvador reiterated her 2011 opinion that Malicdem's glaucoma is not workrelated.[86] Notably, while Dr. Salvador's findings in 2011 pertain to Malicdem's glaucoma during his previous employment with ABPTI, and, hence, not binding in the present case, the same must nevertheless be given reasonable weight and credence in light of the settled jurisprudence that it is the company-designated physician who is entrusted with the task of assessing a seafarer's illness for purposes of claiming disability benefits.[87] Jurisprudence is likewise replete with cases where the Court upheld the findings of the company-designated physicians as against those of the private physician hired by the seafarer-claimant, because the former devoted more attention and time in observing and treating the claimant's condition.[88] In this case, Malicdem was assessed by the company-designated physician on his glaucoma immediately after his first repatriation. He was not, however, assessed by ABPTI's doctors after his latest repatriation because, as found by the labor tribunals and the CA, he failed to report to ABPTL Instead, Malicdem sought the advice of a private physician, but only after more than a year from his latest arrival in the country. He likewise failed to show that his private doctor's findings were reached based on an extensive or comprehensive examination of his condition.[89] Finally, as found by the LA, when Malicdem was repatriated, his contract with ABPTI was already finished.[90] This already weighs strongly against his claims. The Court had, in the past, ruled that repatriation for an expired contract belies a seafarer's submission that his ailment was aggravated by his working conditions and that it was existing during his term of employment.[91] In sum, Malicdem cannot be awarded the total and permanent disability benefits that he seeks. He breached his contractual obligation to submit to a company-designated physician within the required period and failed to prove, by substantial evidence, the compensability of his illnesses. In this light, the Court finds no further need to discuss the other issues raised in the Petition. As a final word, it is true that the beneficent provisions of the POEA SEC are liberally construed in favor of seafarers.[92] This exhortation cannot, however, be taken to sanction the award of compensation and disability benefits in the face of evident failure to substantially establish compensability and unjustified non-compliance with the mandatory reporting requirement under the POEA-SEC. Hence, while the Court commiserates with Malicdem, it cannot grant his claims, lest a clear injustice be caused to ABPTI. WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition for review is hereby DENIED. The Decision dated December 17, 2015 and the Resolution dated May 13, 2016 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 140137 are AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED. Carpio (Chairperson), Del Castillo,[*] Perlas-Bernabe, and Lazaro-Javier, JJ., concur. https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65276 11/17