6/7/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly sought medical assistance from the respondent employer but it refused to extend him help.[25] (Emphases supplied; citations omitted.) Career Philippines Shipmanagement, Inc. is far different from Lloyd's case. Here, there is no unanimous and definite finding that Lloyd timely reported to the companydesignated physician. The LA even brushed aside this issue and held that compliance with the reportorial requirement applies only to claims for sickness allowance and not to disability benefits. On the other hand, the NLRC found that Lloyd "failed to substantiate his allegations that he sought respondent-appellants' help for his purported medical condition and that the same was refused.'"[26] On appeal, the CA ruled that Lloyd's "assertion that he sought, but was refused, medical examination is entitled to more weight than the Private Respondents ' bare denial x x x."[27] In these circumstances, we agree with the NLRC that Lloyd did not report to the companydesignated physician. Again, it is Lloyd who has the duty to establish his affirmative allegation that he submitted himself to post-medical examination after his repatriation. Nevertheless, Lloyd failed to present substantial evidence to prove this assertion. In contrast, Maryville Manila, which denies such allegation, has no burden to produce such proof. Absent evidence of medical repatriation and refusal to give treatment, it can be reasonably deduced that Lloyd suffered illnesses after the term of his contract. To be sure, Lloyd consulted a clinical psychologist on February 12, 2013 or after almost six months from his repatriation on August 29,2012. The psychologist declared Lloyd permanently unfit for further sea service. Thereafter, Lloyd filed a complaint for total and permanent disability benefits. In resolving claims for disability benefits, it is imperative to integrate the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration-Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC) with every agreement between a seafarer and his employer.[28] Lloyd's latest employment contract with Maryville Manila and Maryville Maritime was executed on January, 10, 2012 and is covered by the 2010 Amended Standard Terms and Conditions Governing the Overseas Employment of Filipino Seafarers On-Board Ocean-Going Ships.[29] In Ventis Maritime Corporation v. Salenga,[30] we clarified that Section 20-A of the POEASEC is irrelevant if the seafarer did not suffer an illness or injury during the term of his contract. Rather, it is Section 32-A of the POEA-SEC which will apply if the illness manifests or is discovered after the term of the seafarer's contract, to wit: [S]eafarer's complaints for disability benefits arise from (1) injury or illness that manifests or is discovered during the term of the seafarer's contract, which is usually while the seafarer is on board the vessel or (2) illness that manifests or is discovered after the contract, which is usually after the seafarer has disembarked from the vessel. As further explained below, it is only in the first scenario that Section 20(A) of the POEA-SEC applies. xxxx Accordingly, it was an error for the CA to rely on Section 20(A) of the POEAhttps://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/66675 7/13