comply with the mandatory reporting requirement as to justify exemption of the application of the rule.  In this case, petitioner was incontrovertibly repatriated due to the completion of his contract and not due to any ailment.  There is no showing that he contracted illness during the effectivity of his contract though he maintained that while on board the vessel he noticed a speck of blood in his urine and informed a 2nd mate about it. This remains to be a bare claim unsupported by proof. There is no evidence of any entry in the Master’s report or the vessel’s log of any medical complaints involving petitioner.[34]  More, he could not, at the very least, point out the date of the occurrence of the incident or provide the identity of the crew member to whom he allegedly related the matter.                                               In Rivera v. Wallem Maritime Services, Inc.,[35] this Court again highlighted the importance of the requirement regarding mandatory reporting when it denied therein petitioner’s claim for disability benefits for failure to undergo mandatory post-employment medical examination. This Court held:   In this case, it is not disputed that Rodolfo failed to submit himself to the mandatory post-employment medical examination. The respondent manning agency found out about his confinement only through the petitioner, who asked for assistance in claiming her husband’s retirement benefits.   Indeed, while compliance with the reporting requirement under the Standard Employment Contract can be dispensed with, there must likewise be basis for the award of death compensation.  Without a post-medical examination or its equivalent to show that the disease for which the seaman died was contracted during his employment or that his working conditions increased the risk of contracting the ailment, the respondents cannot be made liable for death compensation.[36]   For the same reason, we are hard pressed to grant petitioner’s claim for disability benefits and other monetary awards prayed for by him.  The Court is surely saddened by the plight of the petitioner, but we are constrained to deny his claim for compensation benefits absent proof of compliance with the requirements set forth in Section 20(B), paragraph (3) of the 2000 Amended Standard Terms and Conditions Governing the Employment of Filipino Seafarers on Board OceanGoing Vessels. Awards of compensation cannot rest on speculations and presumptions as the claimant must prove a positive proposition.[37]             Admittedly, strict rules of evidence are not applicable in claims for compensation and disability benefits, but the Court cannot altogether disregard the mandatory provisions of the law.[38]