6/5/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered dismissing the complaint for lack of merit.[7] 2. However, on appeal, the NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiter and granted petitioner's claim for disability benefits: While it is true that the certification mentioned by the Labor Arbiter appear on record, the latter seemed not to have noticed the more recent certification which was issued by the respondents' hospital in April 2003. To reiterate, the certificate states that [petitioner] is "unfit to work" and his illness appears to be work-oriented, x x x In support of his claims, we are persuaded by [petitioner's] allegations and arguments that: 1. His injury or ailment was due to his work of lifting heavy objects at the vessel; 2. The fact that such was work-related was attested to by the designated hospital of the respondent; 3. [Petitioner's] employment history shows that he spent his entire seafaring career since 1981 with herein respondents; 4. After every conclusion of his contract, he would merely take a vacation of approximately two (2) months only; 5. Beginning with his contract with the duration of 8 July 2000 to April 2001, he was already diagnosed to have a work-related injury or illness of "lumbar spondylosis" or dislocation of lumbar vertebrae; 6. Since his injury then was not yet severe, he was still allowed to be deployed. However, during the period he was on board, he sustained or aggravated his present illness; and 7. At present, he could no longer perform heavy works. The foregoing allegations and argument substantiate the following requirements provided under the POEA Standard Employment Contract for an injury or illness to be compensable: 1. The seafarer's work must involve the risks described herein; 2. The disease was contracted as exposure to the described risks; elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/60102 a result of the seafarer's 4/15