8/26/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly In Jebsens Maritime, Inc. and/or Alliance Marine Services, Ltd. v. Undag,[65] the Court explained the rationale for the three-day mandatory requirement, thus: x x x The rationale behind the rule can easily be divined. Within three days from repatriation, it would be fairly easier for a physician to determine if the illness was work-related or not. After that period, there would be difficulty in ascertaining the real cause of the illness. 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. 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. In such a case, the employers would have no protection against unrelated disability claims.[66] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied) Likewise, reporting to the company within three (3) days from repatriation is required so that the company-designated physician can promptly arrive at a medical diagnosis, considering that he has either 120 or 240 days,[67] depending on the circumstances, within which to complete the assessment of the seafarer; otherwise, the disability claim should be granted.[68] Hence, it is clear that the reporting requirement is indispensable, not only in claiming sickness allowance, as Malicdem suggests, but likewise in claiming compensation and disability benefits under the POEA-SEC. Stated otherwise, non-submission to the company by the seafarer for post employment medical examination within three (3) working days from repatriation results in the forfeiture of his compensation and disability claims. Notably, the mandatory requirement does admit of exceptions, namely: (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 postemployment medical examination by a company-designated physician.[69] None of these, however, is proven or even alleged to obtain in the present case. Hence, for failing to comply with the three-day reporting requirement, Malicdem had forfeited his right to claim disability benefits as expressly provided under Section (20) (A)(3) of the POEA-SEC. Malicdem failed to present substantial evidence that his glaucoma and hypertension are compensable. At any rate, even if the Court excuses Malicdem's failure to comply with the reporting requirement as discussed above, the petition must still fail because he failed to substantially prove that his illnesses are compensable. At the outset, it must be stated that the issue of whether Malicdem's illnesses are workrelated and compensable is essentially factual[70] and not reviewable by the Court on https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65276 8/17