7/7/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly three days from arrival is required 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 seafarers claiming disability benefits that are not work-related or which arose after the employment. 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 employer would have no protection against unrelated claims. Therefore, it is the company-designated physician who must proclaim that the seafarer suffered a permanent disability, whether total or partial, due to either illness or injury, during the term of the latter's employment. In the present case, Tagud disembarked in Singapore and was repatriated to Manila on 8 November 2008. He alleged that he reported to his manning agency but was not given any assistance or referred to a companydesignated physician. However, Tagud did not present any evidence to prove that he tried to submit himself to a company-designated physician within three working days upon his return. Tagud did not also present any letter that he was physically incapacitated to see the company-designated physician in order to be exempted from the rule. It took him about four months from repatriation or on 9 and 10 March 2009 to seek medical attention for pain in his upper right extremities, not from respondents' company-designated physician, but at a private clinic in Caloocan City. No other documents were submitted to prove that he asserted his rights against the company, or that he immediately took action to seek medical assistance from the company, within three days from his repatriation.[40] For reasons unclear, respondent failed to comply with this three-day mandatory reporting requirement. It has been established that after his repatriation, respondent did not report to petitioners nor to the company-designated physician for a post-employment medical examination. While respondent tried to justify such omission by claiming that petitioners refused to examine him for lack of a master's medical pass, he failed to prove such defense. Respondent did not present any evidence to prove that he tried to submit himself to a company-designated physician within three working days upon his return. Respondent likewise did not present any letter that he was physically incapacitated to see the company-designated physician in order to be exempted from the rule. Worse, it took him months from repatriation to seek medical attention for his ailments, not from petitioners' company-designated physician, but from a doctor of his choice. In fact, at the time of the filing of the complaint in August 2009, no doctor has declared him unfit to work. Simply put, similar to the Tagud Case, respondent did not submit any document to prove that he asserted his rights against the company, or that he immediately took action to seek medical assistance from the company, within three days from his repatriation. From the foregoing, this Court finds and so rules that respondent's failure to comply with the three-day mandatory reporting requirement proves fatal to his case. Corollary, his right to claim disability benefits, sickness allowance and such other benefits in https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/66977 10/14