5/28/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly employment contributed even in a small degree to the development of the disease. Anent InterOrient’s contention that Victor never intimated or complained about any illness or injury while on board the vessel, the said court stated that it is not required for an illness to be considered as an occupational disease before a Complaint can be filed. One needs only to prove that the ailment was contracted while working under conditions involving the risk described in the POEA Contract. The CA did not likewise give much weight to the Receipt and Release signed by Victor as it found its terms so unconscionable that Victor was shortchanged by a significant amount. InterOrient filed a Motion for Reconsideration[24] which was denied by the CA in a Resolution[25] dated February 21, 2008. Issues Hence, this Petition for Review on Certiorari imputing upon the CA the following errors: X X X THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN AWARDING PERMANENT DISABILITY BENEFITS IN THE AMOUNT OF US$60,000.00 AND ATTORNEY’S FEES, CONSIDERING THAT: A. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN SETTING ASIDE THE NLRC’S DECISION, THERE BEING NO GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION ON THE PART OF THE COMMISSION. ON THE CONTRARY, THE NLRC DECISION WAS SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. B. THE COURT OF APPEALS DISREGARDED THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE POEA STANDARD EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT WHEN IT RULED THAT VICTOR M. CREER III’S ILLNESS WAS WORK-RELATED DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE SAME AROSE ELEVEN (11) MONTHS AFTER THE EXPIRATION OF HIS EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT. C. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN RULING THAT VICTOR M. CREER III’S ILLNESS AROSE DURING HIS EMPLOYMENT OR THE RISK OF CONTRACTING THE SAME WAS AGGRAVATED BY HIS EMPLOYMENT DESPITE THE LACK OF REASONABLE PROOF IN THIS RESPECT. D. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN AWARDING ATTORNEY’S FEES.[26] elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/57627 5/19