4/29/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly or disease was pre-existing at the time of the employment, but rather if the disease or injury is work-related or is aggravated by his working condition. The LA observed that before Enrique's hiring, he underwent a medical examination and was declared fit to work, but after 7 months of work was found suffering from pneumonia/tuberculosis foci, thus, it concluded that Enrique contracted the disease during the term of his employment. Aggrieved, respondents filed their memorandum on appeal[19] with the NLRC, to which Enrique filed his Comment/Opposition thereto.[20] On June 8, 2001, the NLRC rendered a Decision, the dispositive portion of which reads: WHEREFORE, the decision of [the] Labor Arbiter below is SET ASIDE. The complaint below is dismissed for lack of merit. SO ORDERED.[21] The NLRC adopted the findings of LA Cristeta D. Tamayo to whom it referred the case for report and recommendation. The NLRC found that Enrique failed to adduce any evidence which established that he contracted or suffered from pneumonia/tuberculosis foci while in the employ of respondents from April 23, 1996 to November 30, 1996 as there was not a single medical certificate issued while he was still on board the vessel; that what he presented were medical certificates issued long after he had already disembarked from the vessel. It also observed that the earliest date of Enrique's medical certificate was January 6, 1997 which was two months after his disembarkation, thus if he was indeed repatriated for medical reasons, he should have submitted a medical certificate which bore a date close to his disembarkation; and that absent any proof that he was repatriated due to medical reasons, the conclusion was that Enrique was repatriated upon completion of his seven-month contract. The NLRC found that under Section 20 B-3 of Memorandum Circular No. 55, a seafarer who is medically repatriated should submit himself to a post-employment medical examination within three days upon his return or to notify the agency within the same period of his physical incapacity to do so, and the failure to comply would result in the forfeiture of the right to sickness allowance and disability benefits; that Enrique's admission that he was physically examined only on January 6, 1997, which was more than one month from the date of his arrival in the Philippines, therefore, forfeited his right to any disability benefit, even if we are to assume arguendo that it existed. The NLRC also noted that Enrique failed to give any reason for the delay in filing his claim, i.e., two years and eleven months from his disembarkation; and, that despite Enrique's alleged continuous medical treatment, he never requested for payment or reimbursement of his medical expenses from respondents. Enrique filed a petition for certiorari with the CA. After the parties submitted their respective pleadings, the case was submitted for decision. elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/56060 3/10