4/13/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly money for his airfare, as well as his living expenses while away from home. At any rate, Hanseatic promised to reimburse his expenditures upon his arrival in Manila. Certainly, it was in all of Antolino's best interests that he be present at the November 4, 2015 check-up. Not only would he have been informed of the true status of his injury, but more importantly, the company-designated physician would have been able to assess his condition and declare him fit to work.[37] Had such a declaration been made, Antolino would have been able to resume his work as a seafarer. However, Antolino did not attend the scheduled medical examination. Instead, he chose to delay his appearance before the company-designated physician for almost three months. When he arrived in Manila on January 22, 2016, he was told to sign a fit-towork document. By then, his failure to continue regularly reporting for medical treatment could have impeded his recovery. Worse, the deterioration of his physical condition, which normally occurs as one ages, could have served to aggravate his injury. At this point, the Court quotes with approval the NLRC's ruling on Antolino's abandonment: The records clearly established that [Antolino] knew that he had a scheduled medical follow-up on November 4, 2015. [Antolino], however, failed to honor his appointment. Several follow-up letters were sent to him by [Hanseatic] on December 2, 2015 and December 28, 2015, requiring him to report and later warning him about the forfeiture of his medical benefits in case of his non-compliance. [Antolino] still failed to report despite receiving the notices. [Antolino's] excuse that he had no money for airfare from Antique to Manila and requested assistance from [Hanseatic] but was refused is too tenuous to be believed. Other than his bare allegation, nothing was presented to support his claim. Further, in [Hanseatic's] December 2, 2015 letter, they already assured [Antolino] that they would cover his expenses, but still [Antolino] never sent a word. The [LA] held that [Antolino] did not abandon his medical treatment as in fact he reported to the company doctor on January 22, 2016. We must stress, however, that by that time, after almost three (3) months from the scheduled consult, any deterioration in the medical condition of [Antolino] would have been attributable to his own negligence. xxxx [I]t is the obligation of the seafarer to regularly report to the companydesignated doctor on the dates prescribed as much as it is the obligation of the employer to provide medical attention. [Antolino's] failure to comply has thus resulted in the forfeiture of his right to benefits.[38] https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/66178 7/12