4/9/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly permanent disability has been assessed by the company-designated physician but in no case shall this period exceed one hundred-twenty (120) days. For this purpose, the seaman shall submit himself to a post-employment medical examination by the companydesignated 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. [Emphases and underscoring supplied] From the records, it appears that Zosimo failed to comply with the mandatory 72-hour post-employment medical examination deadline as provided for in said Section C(4)(c) of the 1989 POEA SEC. It was only on July 19, 1996, or nine days upon his arrival to the Philippines, that Zosimo sought medical attention from FMC, petitioners’ designated physician. The mandate of the aforementioned provision is to make the post-employment examination within three (3) working days from the seafarer’s arrival/repatriation to the Philippines compulsory, except when the seafarer is physically incapacitated to do so, before a claim for disability or death benefits can validly prosper. The purpose of the 3-day mandatory reporting requirement can easily be ascertained. 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 of his employment or that his working conditions increased the risk of contracting the ailment. In this case, the respondent did not adduce evidence to justify Zosimo’s non-compliance with the mandatory rule. Considering, however, that he had a physical infirmity, the Court gives respondent the benefit of the doubt. Nonetheless, the Court is of the considered view that respondent likewise failed to adduce substantial evidence showing that the pneumonia, which her husband contracted, was caused by tetanus as a result of the burn injury. The rule is that, in labor cases, substantial evidence or such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as sufficient to support a conclusion is required. The oftrepeated rule is that whoever claims entitlement to the benefits provided by law should establish his or her right thereto by substantial evidence. Substantial evidence is more than a mere scintilla.[26] Any decision based on unsubstantiated allegations cannot stand as it will offend due process.[27] In arguing for the compensability of Zosimo's death, respondent claims that the burn injury suffered by him on board M.V. Apollo brought about the tetanus infection which eventually led to pneumonia causing his death. The Court, however, finds difficulty in accepting this. The injury sustained by Zosimo on board the vessel was undeniably a burn injury defined as “injuries of skin or other tissue caused by thermal, radiation, chemical, or electrical contact.”[28] On the other hand, the various pieces of documentary evidence[29] elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/55408 7/11