5/28/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly by a company-designated physician. Non-compliance with this mandatory requirement results in the forfeiture of the right to claim for compensation and disability benefits. It is undisputed that on May 7, 2002, Victor’s employment contract was completed. He arrived in Manila on May 9, 2002; the following day, or on May 10, 2002, he reported to the office of InterOrient. Although he averred that he informed InterOrient about the pain he experienced while on board the vessel, the company allegedly only advised him to consult a doctor but did not give any referral. We are not persuaded by Victor’s contention. It must be stressed that his repatriation was not due to any medical reasons but because his employment contract had already expired. Other than his self-serving allegation that he experienced pain while on board, he was not able to substantiate the same. There was no showing that he reported his injury to his officers while on board the vessel; neither did he prove that he sought medical attention but was refused. Likewise, other than his bare and self-serving assertion that he informed InterOrient about his pain, he presented no evidence or tangible proof that he indeed requested for medical attention, much more that he was rebuffed. On the contrary, the records show that when he reported to InterOrient immediately after his repatriation, he signed a Receipt and Release stating that he has not contracted or suffered any illness or injury from work and that he was discharged in good and perfect health. Moreover, we are baffled why, if indeed Victor needed medical services, he opted to consult several doctors other than the company-designated physician. He offered no explanation for this. “The rationale for the rule [on mandatory post-employment medical examination within three days from repatriation by a company-designated physician] is that reporting the illness or injury within three days from repatriation fairly makes it easier for a physician to determine the cause of the illness or injury. Ascertaining the real cause of the illness or injury beyond the period may prove difficult. To ignore the rule might set a precedent with negative repercussions, like opening floodgates to a limitless number of seafarers claiming disability benefits, or causing unfairness to the employer who would have difficulty determining the cause of a claimant’s illness because of the passage of time. The employer would then have no protection against unrelated disability claims.”[28] In fine, we hold that Victor’s non-compliance with the three-day rule on postemployment medical examination is fatal to his cause. As a consequence, his right to claim for compensation and disability benefits is forfeited. On this score alone, his Complaint could have been dismissed outright. Victor’s illness is not compensable. Even if we disregard the mandatory three-day rule on post-employment medical elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/57627 7/19