7/7/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly The foregoing leads this Court to conclude that respondent failed to discharge the burden of proof that there is causal connection between the nature of his employment and his illnesses, or that the risk of contracting the illnesses was increased by his working conditions. As things are, records reveal that respondent was repatriated for "finished contract," not for medical reasons. He chose to complete his employment contract with the petitioners instead of being medically repatriated, even as he experienced nausea and body pains on board. In Villanueva, Sr. v. Baliwag Navigacion, Inc.,[30] the Court noted with approval the CA conclusion that the fact that the seafarer was repatriated for finished contract and not for medical reasons weakened, if not belied, his claim of illness on board the vessel.[31] Verily, repatriation due to a finished contract is "an indication that the injury or illness is not work-related."[32] Even if this Court were to consider that respondent was repatriated for health reasons, his failure to submit himself to a post-employment medical examination by a companydesignated physician within three working days upon his return militates against his claim for disability benefits. Under Section 20-B(3), paragraph 2[33] of the 2000 POEA SEC, a seafarer who was repatriated for medical reasons must, within three working days from his disembarkation, submit himself to a post-employment medical examination (PEME) to be conducted by the company-designated physician. Failure of the seafarer to comply with this three-day mandatory reporting requirement shall result in the forfeiture of his right to claim the POEA-SEC granted benefits. The purpose of this three-day mandatory reporting requirement is to allow the employer's doctors a reasonable opportunity to assess the seafarer's medical condition in order to determine whether his illness is work-related or not As explained in Jebsens Maritime, Inc. and/or Alliance Marine Services, Ltd. v. Undag:[34] x x x The rationale behind the rule can easily be divined. Within three days from repatriation, it would be fairly easier for a physician to determine if the illness was work-related or not. After that period, there would be difficulty in ascertaining the real cause of the illness. To ignore the rule would set a precedent with negative repercussions because it would open the floodgates to a limitless number of seafarers claiming disability benefits. 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 employers would have no protection against unrelated disability claims.[35] Furthermore, time and again, case law has been consistent in stating that such rule is mandatory in nature. In Manota v. Avantgarde Shipping Corp.,[36] this Court dismissed the seafarer's complaint due to his failure to comply with the three-day mandatory reporting requirement, viz.: https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/66977 8/14