5/28/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly While technical rules of procedure and evidence are not strictly observed before the NLRC,[23] this does not mean that the rules on proving allegations are entirely dispensed with. The basic rule in evidence that each party must prove his affirmative allegation still applies. Insofar as Moradas is concerned, he must establish the following: 1. That the illness/injury was suffered during the term of employment; 2. That the seafarer report to the company-designated physician for a postemployment medical examination and evaluation within three (3) working days from the time of his return; 3. That any disability should be assessed by the company designated physician on the basis of the Schedule of Disability Grades as provided under the POEASEC.[24] Except as to the third requisite (which shall be subject of a later discussion), the existence of the first two requisites is not seriously disputed: Moradas suffered his injuries during the term of his contract and he underwent a medical evaluation from the company-designated physician. At this juncture, I emphasize that Moradas is not required to prove that his injury was not due to his own wilful act. That burden falls on the petitioners as part of their defense,[25] after invoking Section 20(D) of the POEA Standard Terms and Conditions Governing the Employment of Seafarers OnBoard Ocean Going Vessels. No compensation shall be payable in respect of any injury, incapacity, disability or death of the seafarer resulting from his wilful or criminal act, provided however that the employer can prove that such injury, incapacity, disability or death is directly attributable to seafarer. This provision expressly requires the employer to prove that the injury is directly attributable to the seafarer. As in other administrative proceedings, substantial evidence will suffice for the petitioners to avoid liability under this provision. Substantial evidence is defined as such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, even if other minds equally reasonable might conceivably opine otherwise.[26] If the employer is able to establish by substantial evidence its defense, then that is the only time that the burden of evidence shifts to the seafarer to overcome the employer's case. Hence, the rule that factual findings of the courts applies only if these are supported evidence supports the factual findings, and prevailing law and jurisprudence, the courts petition. elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/56605 LA and of the NLRC are binding on the by substantial evidence. If substantial the legal conclusions are in accord with would have no option but to dismiss the 19/31