5/19/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly he was hindered from returning to his previous job as a seafarer.[38] Meanwhile, respondent Anglo-Eastern claimed that Toliongco was not illegally dismissed as he was actually the one who asked for the early termination of his employment contract.[39] They also insisted that Toliongco cannot claim disability benefits because: (1) he was not repatriated on a medical ground; (2) he did not comply with the mandatory requirement for post-employment medical examination within three days from his arrival; and (3) there is no declaration from the company-designated physician as to his fitness for sea duty.[40] While the Labor Arbiter found that Toliongco was constructively dismissed and forced to repatriate himself due to "the hostile environment brought about by. . . [the] filing of the complaint,"[41] it concluded that Toliongco cannot claim disability benefits because he failed to report within three (3) days from his arrival and the medical evidence he submitted was not enough to guarantee his claim.[42] There are no compelling reasons to accord the exceptional clause 'physically incapacitated to do so' a liberal reading. Hence, since complainant's failure to observe his reportorial duty is by reason of alleged mental or psychological condition, it cannot be equated with physical incapacity. Moreover, complainant offered no explanation as to why he did not notify his manning agent by some other means. For these two reasons, his disability compensation — assuming he was entitled thereto — is deemed forfeited. [43] Nevertheless, the Labor Arbiter directed respondents to pay Toliongco "moral damages for the mental torture that he endured and exemplary damages to dissuade such incident from further occurring."[44] Attorney's fees were also awarded as Toliongco was constrained to avail the services of a lawyer:[45] Regardless, complainant was certainly wronged. His resistance to the repeated demands of his CO to masturbate him and suck his penis led to his complaint. In turn, his complaint was met with violent reaction by his superior. It will not escape the attention of this Office that his allegation that he was threatened with death was never really contested by the respondents. In short, his work environment became a hostile, offensive and intimidating environment because he resisted his superior's demand for sexual favor. What was done to him was clear sexual harassment.[46] The dispositive portion of the Labor Arbiter's decision reads: WHEREFORE, evidence and law considered, judgment is hereby rendered holding the respondents liable for the constructive dismissal of the complainant. Accordingly, they are hereby ORDERED to solidarily pay the latter as follows: Salaries for the unexpired portion of the contract Php https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/66544 54, 384.16 4/25