6/7/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly In Andrada v. Agemar Manning Agency, Inc., et al.,[21] this Court held that: Jurisprudence is replete with pronouncements that it is the companydesignated 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. It is his findings and evaluations which should form the basis of the seafarer's disability claim. His assessment, however, is not automatically final, binding or conclusive on the claimant, the labor tribunal or the courts, as its inherent merits would still have to be weighed and duly considered. The seafarer may dispute such assessment by seasonably exercising his prerogative to seek a second opinion and consult a doctor of his choice. In case of disagreement between the findings of the company-designated physician and the seafarer's doctor of choice, the employer and the seaman may agree jointly to refer the latter to a third doctor whose decision shall be final and binding on them.[22] In the present case, there is no evidence to show that the parties jointly sought the opinion of a third physician in the determination and assessment of Ernesto's disability or the absence of it. Hence, the credibility of the findings of their respective doctors was properly evaluated by the labor tribunals (LA and NLRC) as well as the CA on the basis of their inherent merits. After a review of the records at hand, the Court finds that there is no cogent reason to depart from the findings of the LA and the NLRC that Ernesto failed to establish that his subject illnesses were either work-related or work aggravated. For disability to be compensable under the above POEA-SEC, two elements must concur: (1) the injury or illness must be work-related; and (2) the work-related injury or illness must have existed during the term of the seafarer's employment contract.[23] To be entitled to compensation and benefits under the governing POEA-SEC, it is not sufficient to establish that the seafarer's illness or injury has rendered him permanently or partially disabled; it must also be shown that there is a causal connection between the seafarer's illness or injury and the work for which he had been contracted.[24] In other words, while the law recognizes that an illness may be disputably presumed to be work-related, prevailing jurisprudence requires that the seafarer or the claimant must still show a reasonable connection between the nature of work on board the vessel and the illness contracted or aggravated.[25] Thus, the burden is placed upon the claimant to present substantial evidence that his work conditions caused or at least increased the risk of contracting the disease.[26] In this case, however, Ernesto was unable to present substantial evidence to show that his work conditions caused, or at the least increased the risk of contracting his illness. Neither was he able to prove that his illness was pre-existing and that it was aggravated by the nature of his employment. Contrary to the ruling of the CA, there is no evidence to prove that the findings of elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/64139 8/14