6/5/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly Even assuming that there was compliance with the mandatory reporting requirement, other factors that strongly militate against the granting of petitioners' claims exist in this case. First, while petitioners did present a medical certificate dated June 26, 2001 which was issued while Delfin was still employed with respondents, nothing therein shows that the incident subject thereof has something to do or is related to MPNST - the injury or illness which caused Delfin's disability. Specifically, said certificate pertains to a blow on Delfin's back caused by a metal board and for which he complained of "persistent pain in the chest and upper abdominal region." For this, Delfin was advised to undertake only "light duties for [the] rest of [the] week" and that "if not settled[,] will need reassessment]." On the other hand, the injury that showed up in his chest x-ray and MRI for which he claimed compensation pertains to a different portion of his body, i.e., a fracture in one of his ribs.[35] Besides, if indeed there is truth to petitioners' assertion that Delfin continued to experience pain after he was hit by a metal board on his back, then why did he not request for reassessment as advised or submit himself to the mandatory reporting requirement after he was repatriated? What is glaring instead is that against all these, petitioners only offered their bare allegation that Delfin's medical condition did not improve thereafter. Second, while Delfin averred that he experienced on-and-off pain even prior to the June 26, 2001 incident, there exists no record thereof. On the contrary, Delfin himself claimed that despite the pain, he "remained calm and unbothered by the same."[36] Third, it is also interesting to note that although petitioners did submit Delfin's chest xray and MRI results[37] revealing a fracture in one of his ribs, it must be emphasized that these findings were issued more than two years after his repatriation. Worse still, the Clinical Abstract submitted by petitioner was undated[38] such that it cannot be determined when the said document was released. Be that as it may, it can be safely concluded that the said clinical abstract was issued in or after 2004 since it contained a detailed history of Delfin's illness starting from his having been diagnosed with MPNST in 2003, and an enumeration of his documented episodes of pathologic fractures occurring in May 2002, December 2003 and April 2004. These only highlight the fact that a considerable period of time had passed from Delfin's repatriation in August 2001 up to the time that he started to suffer pathologic fractures in May 2002. Thus, it cannot be said that Delfin's rib fracture subject of the above-mentioned chest x-ray and MRI was caused by the blow on his back of the metal sheet that fell on him as petitioners would want to impress upon this Court. On the other hand, what is more likely under the circumstances is that the fracture came about after his repatriation. For one, the report contained in Delfin's clinical abstract is telling, viz: Patient is a diagnosed case of Malignant Peripheral Nerve Sheath Tumor. (2003 SLMC)[.] He also had several episodes of pathologic fractures: x x x Sixteen hours prior to admission, while in bed, trying to change elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/60112 10/16