4/10/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly For this purpose, the seafarer shall submit himself to a post-employment medical examination by a company-designated 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 seafarer to comply with the mandatory reporting requirement shall result in his forfeiture of the right to claim the above benefits. If a doctor appointed by the seafarer disagrees with the assessment, a third doctor may be agreed jointly between the employer and the seafarer. The third doctor's decision shall be final and binding on both parties. (Emphasis added.) In Coastal Safeway Marine Services v. Esguerra,[29] we ruled that the foregoing provision means that “it is the company designated-physician who is entrusted with the task of assessing the seaman's disability, whether total or partial, due to either injury or illness, during the term of the latter's employment. Concededly, this does not mean that the assessment of said physician is final, binding or conclusive on the claimant, the labor tribunal or the courts. Should he be so minded, the seafarer has the prerogative to request a second opinion and to consult a physician of his choice regarding his ailment or injury, in which case the medical report issued by the latter shall be evaluated by the labor tribunal and the court, based on its inherent merit. For the seaman's claim to prosper, however, it is mandatory that he should be examined by a company-designated physician within three days from his repatriation. Failure to comply with this mandatory reporting requirement without justifiable cause shall result in forfeiture of the right to claim the compensation and disability benefits provided under the POEA-SEC.” Viewed in light of the foregoing considerations, we find that LISI correctly fault the CA for awarding sickness allowance and permanent disability compensation in favor of Calawigan. Shown to have requested for his disembarkation and/or resignation one month prior to the expiration of his contract,[30] Calawigan failed to establish compliance with the requirement for him to undergo post-employment medical examination by a company-designated physician within three working days from his repatriation on 5 June 2005. But for Calawigan’s bare allegation that he requested said medical examination from LISI which supposedly referred his request to the SSS as a sickness benefit claim, the record is bereft of any showing of any justification for said seafarer’s non-compliance with the requirement. If a written notice is required of a seafarer who is physically incapacitated for purposes of abiding with the requirement of a post-employment medical examination, it stands to reason that a more tangible proof of compliance should be expected of Calawigan who appears to have been well enough to consult with Dr. Mendiola at the MHAC for his ear complaint. Time and again, we have ruled that self-serving and unsubstantiated declarations are insufficient to establish a case before quasi-judicial bodies where the quantum of evidence required to establish a fact is substantial evidence.[31] Often described as more than a mere scintilla,[32] substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/55413 6/11