6/7/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly evidence on record. [In contrast, the events that transpired after the July 14, 1999 visit, as extensively discussed by the CA above, effectively served to corroborate Serna's claim on the visit's purpose, i.e., to seek medical assistance.] Under these circumstances, we find no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the NLRC when it affirmed the labor arbiter ruling and gave credence to Serna on this point. Under the evidentiary rules, a positive assertion is generally entitled to more weight than a plain denial. We note on this point that the obligation imposed by the mandatory reporting requirement under Section 20 (B) (3) of the 1996 POEA-SEC is not solely on the seafarer. It requires the employer to likewise act on the report, and in this sense partakes of the nature of a reciprocal obligation. Reciprocal obligations are those which arise from the same cause, and where each party is effectively a debtor and a creditor of the other, such that the obligation of one is dependent upon the obligation of the other. While the mandatory reporting requirement obliges the seafarer to be present for the post-employment medical examination, which must be conducted within three (3) working days upon the seafarer's return, it also poses the employer the implied obligation to conduct a meaningful and timely examination of the seafarer. Using the foregoing as baseline, it could thus be concluded that, first, as between the Petitioner and the Private Respondents' contrasting claims, the Petitioner's positive assertion that he sought, but was refused, medical examination is entitled to more weight than the Private Respondents' bare denial and, second, the lack of a postmedical examination in this case cannot be used to defeat respondent's [Petitioner, in this case] claim since the failure to subject the seafarer to this requirement was not due to the seafarer's fault but to the inadvertence or deliberate refusal of petitioners [Private Respondents, in this case]. Needless to stress, the time-honored rule that, in controversies between a laborer and his employer, doubts reasonably arising from the evidence should be resolved in the former's favor in consonance with the avowed policy of the State to give maximum aid and protection to labor finds application at bench. xxxx WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The assailed dispositions are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, the Decision of the Labor Arbiter is REINSTATED. No costs. SO ORDERED.[16] (Emphases supplied.) https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/66675 4/13