4/29/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly examination by the company-designated physician within three working days upon his return except when he is physically incapacitated to do so, in which case a written notice to the agency within the same period is deemed as compliance. Failure of the seaman to comply with the mandatory reporting requirement shall result in his forfeiture of the right to claim the above benefits. Based on the foregoing provision, it must be shown that the injury or illness was contracted during the term of the employment contract. The unqualified phrase “during the term” covered all injuries or illnesses occurring during the lifetime of the contract. [25] And it is the oft-repeated rule that whoever claims entitlement to the benefits provided by law should establish his right to the benefits by substantial evidence.[26] Often described as more than a mere scintilla, substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, even if other equally reasonable minds might conceivably opine otherwise.[27] Any decision based on unsubstantiated allegations cannot stand as it will offend due process.[28] Hence, the burden to prove entitlement to disability benefits lies on petitioners, thus they must establish that Enrique had contracted his illness which resulted to his disability during the term of the employment contract. A review of the records shows that petitioners failed to prove by substantial evidence that Enrique's illness which resulted to his disability was acquired during the term of his employment contract. There was no record of medical complaint lodged by Enrique during his employment on board the vessel “Henriette Kosan” and even after his arrival in the Philippines on December 2, 1996. As the NLRC correctly observed, the medical certificates submitted were issued long after Enrique had disembarked from the vessel. Except for their bare allegation, petitioners failed to present any evidence that would indeed establish that Enrique contracted his illness during his employment. In fact, respondents were not even aware or apprised of Enrique's illness which was allegedly contracted during the term of his employment contract until the latter claimed for disability benefits almost 3 years later. Thus, we give credence to respondents' claim that Enrique was repatriated to the Philippines due to the completion of his employment contract and not on account of medical reason. But assuming arguendo that Enrique was repatriated for medical treatment as he claimed, the above-quoted provision clearly provides that it is mandatory for a seaman to submit himself to a post-employment medical examination within three (3) working days from his arrival in the Philippines before his right to a claim for disability or death benefits can prosper. The provision, however, admits of exception, i.e., when the seafarer is physically incapacitated to do so, but there must be a written notice to the agency within the same period for the seaman to be considered to have complied with the 3-day rule. The 3-day mandatory reporting requirement must be strictly observed since within 3 days from repatriation, it would be fairly manageable for the physician to identify whether the disease for which the seaman died was contracted during the term elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/56060 5/10