4/10/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly and it behooves the respondents to present substantial evidence to overcome this presumption. To petitioners, respondents have failed to discharge this burden. On the contrary, respondents admitted that David was suffering from a Grade I disability. Petitioners further add that there is a reasonable causal connection between David’s illness and the duties he performed as a Third Officer on board respondents’ crude tanker. In their comment, respondents counter that the appellate court’s denial action was correct since “convenient presumption regarding work-relation will not suffice to justify an award of disability benefits”[28] and David failed to submit any real and substantial evidence “to dispute the opinion of the company physician confirming [the] absence of work-relation.”[29] Respondents posit that if David was indeed convinced that his illness was work-related, he should have procured supporting opinion from his various doctors. [30] The petition has merit. Deemed read and incorporated into the Contract of Employment between David and respondents are the provisions of the 2000 Philippine Overseas Employment Agency Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC). Section 20(B) of the POEA-SEC reads: SECTION 20. COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS. --- B. COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS FOR INJURY OR ILLNESSES The liabilities of the employer when the seafarer suffers work-related injury or illness during the term of his contract are as follows: 1. x x x x 2. x x x x 3. Upon sign-off from the vessel for medical treatment, the seafarer is entitled to sickness allowance equivalent to his basic wage until he is declared fit to work, or the degree of permanent disability has been assessed by the company-designated physician, but in no case shall this period exceed one hundred twenty (120) days. xxxx 4. Those illnesses not listed in Section 32 of this Contract are disputably presumed as work related.[31] (Emphasis supplied.) In this case, David suffered from malignant fibrous histiocytoma (MFH) in his left thigh. MFH is not one of the diseases enumerated under Sec. 32 of the POEA-SEC. However, Sec. 20(B)(4) of the POEA-SEC clearly established a disputable presumption in favor of elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/55191 5/12