5/19/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly The Court also consistently held that the very nature of diabetes does not indicate work-relatedness. It is a metabolic and familial disease to which one is predisposed by reason of family history, obesity, or old age. The disputable presumption of workrelatedness under the POEA-SEC is not a magic wand that would readily grant benefits to every seafarer. A seafarer must still establish through substantial evidence that his illness is work- related before he can claim disability benefits.[50] Regarding petitioner's hypertensive cardiovascular disease, the company designated doctor noted as early as October 2012 that petitioner's blood pressure had already been controlled.[51] As regards his osteoarthritis, the same is not compensable. It did not occur or manifest during his employment aboard the vessel.[52] In any event, the company-designated doctor declared petitioner fit to work as early as March 14, 2013. Petitioner failed to show an iota of proof that the company-designated doctor's findings are tainted with bias, malice, or bad faith.[53] Issues 1. Is petitioner guilty of material concealment of a previous medical condition? 2. Assuming that there was no material concealment to speak of, did petitioner comply with the conditions prescribed under the 2010 POEA-SEC to entitle him to total and permanent disability benefits? Ruling The employment of seafarers is governed by the contracts they sign at the time of their engagement. So long as the stipulations in these contracts are not contrary to law, morals, public order, or public policy, they have the force of law as between the parties. While the seafarer and his employer are governed by their mutual agreement, the POEA Rules and Regulations require that the POEA-SEC be integrated in every seafarer's contract.[54] Here, petitioner's employment is governed by the contract he executed with respondents in January 2012, the POEA-SEC, and the parties' Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). First Issue Material concealment Respondents deny petitioner's claim for disability benefits on ground of the latter's alleged material concealment of pre-existing or previous diagnosis with hypertension and diabetes. Section 20(E) of the POEA-SEC, as amended by POE A Memorandum Circular No. 10, series of 2010, the governing law at the time petitioner was employed in 2012, provides: https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/66467 8/17