6/5/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly proving entitlement to disability benefits lies on petitioners.[28] Thus, they must establish that Delfin suffered or contracted his injury or illness which resulted in his disability during the term of the employment contract. An examination of the records, however, shows that petitioners failed to discharge such burden. The 1996 POEA SEC clearly provides that a seafarer must submit himself to a postemployment medical examination within three days from his arrival in the Philippines (mandatory reporting requirement) so that his claim for disability and sickness allowance can prosper.[29] The only exception to this rule is when the seafarer is physically incapacitated to do so, but there must be a written notice to the agency within the same period of three days for the seaman to be considered to have complied with the requirement.[30] Otherwise, he forfeits his right to claim his disability benefits and sickness allowance.[31] In Manota v. Avantgarde Shipping Corporation.[32] the Court explained the rationale behind the three-day period requirement, thus: 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 identity whether the disease x xx was contracted during the term of his employment or that his working conditions increased the risk of contracting the ailment. xxxx x x x Moreover, the post-employment medical examination within 3 days from x xx arrival is required in order to ascertain [the seafarer's] physical condition, since to ignore the rule would set a precedent with negative repercussions because it would open the floodgates to a limitless number of seafarers claiming disability benefits. It would certainly be unfair to the employer who would have difficulty determining the cause of a claimant's illness considering the passage of time. In such a case, the employers would have no protection against unrelated disability claims. Here, petitioners claim that Delfin went to respondents to comply with the mandatory reporting requirement and to seek medical assistance but his request for medical evaluation was unheeded. Petitioners, however, failed to support this.[33] In Career Philippines Shipmanagement, Inc. v. Serna,[34] the Court upheld the seafarer's claim that he complied with the mandatory reporting requirement and sought medical assistance from his agency, thus: We see no reason to disturb the lower tribunals' finding. While Serna's verified claim with respect to his July 14, 1999 visit to the petitioner's office may be seen by some as a bare allegation, we note that the petitioners' corresponding denial is itself also a bare allegation that, worse, is unsupported by other evidence on record. In contrast, the events that transpired after the July 14, 1999 visit, elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/60112 8/16