7/7/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly relation thereto, is deemed forfeited. This Court likewise takes notice of the established fact that it took respondent nine long months before lodging a complaint for disability compensation against petitioners. Such inordinate delay in the institution of the complaint casts a grave suspicion and doubt not only as to the veracity of respondent's claims, but also on his true intentions against the petitioners. In sum, this Court agrees with the findings and conclusions of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC. Respondent is not entitled to permanent disability benefits for his failure to (1) undergo a post-employment medical examination within the three-day mandatory reporting period as required under the law, or to show that such failure was due to a valid reason; and (2) establish that his illnesses were work-related. Accordingly, respondent's loss of one kidney, vis-a-vis his doctor's certification that he is rendered permanently unfit for sea duty, are rendered irrelevant to the case. On a final note, while the POEA standard employment contract is designed primarily for the protection and benefit of Filipino seafarers in the pursuit of their employment on board ocean-going vessels, hence, its provisions should be construed and applied fairly, reasonably, and liberally in favor or for the benefit of the seafarer and his dependents, [41] it is likewise true that whoever claims entitlement to the benefits provided by law should establish his right to the benefits by substantial evidence.[42] The burden to prove entitlement to disability benefits, therefore, lies on respondent Unfortunately, he failed to discharge such burden. All told, this Court concludes that the findings of the LA and the NLRC are supported by substantial evidence. The CA, therefore, committed reversible error when it awarded respondent disability benefits. Clearly, respondent's claim for disability compensation lacks legal and factual bases. The dismissal of the complaint for disability compensation against petitioners is, thus, warranted. WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing premises, the instant petition is GRANTED. The January 31, 2013 Decision and the May 28, 2013 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 120916, are SET ASIDE. The May 7, 2010 Decision of the Labor Arbiter and March 31, 2011 Decision of the National Labor Relations Commission, both dismissing the complaint for lack of merit, are REINSTATED. SO ORDERED. Peralta, C. J., Caguioa, and Zalameda, JJ., concur. Carandang, J., on official leave. [1] Rollo, pp. 57-68; penned by Associate Justice Amelita G. Tolentino, with Associate Justices Ramon R. Garcia and Danton Q. Bueser, concurring. https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/66977 11/14