5/28/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly although it is known to be more prevalent in men than women.[45] Hence, granting, arguendo, that Ravena had in fact been exposed to various, albeit unspecified, substances/chemicals while working on board M/V Tate J, his exposure could still not be deemed, for purposes of disability compensation, to have caused, aggravated or contributed to the development of his ampullary cancer given the nature of the contributory risk factors that we cited above. In the same manner, neither could "a diet consisting mostly of processed and red meat on board M/V Tate J" be reasonably considered as having caused, aggravated or contributed to the development of his ampullary cancer. We point out again that the medically determined risk factors for the development of ampullary cancer are genetic factors and alterations, smoking and certain diseases. A diet high in processed and red meat is far from being related to these risk factors. As a final word and a cautionary clarification, we do not here rule with absolute precision on the noncausing, non-aggravating, or non-contributing effect that any or all substances/chemicals and a processedand-red-meat-rich diet may have on ampullary cancer. We are not experts on the matter and we recognize the considerable degree of uncertainty inherent in the field of medicine and its study. Our ruling on this petition should, therefore, be understood strictly in the light of and limited to the surrounding circumstances of this case. Stated differently, we declare that Ravena's ampullary cancer is not work-related, and therefore not compensable, because he failed to prove, by substantial evidence, its work-relatedness and his compliance with the parameters that the law had precisely set out in disability benefits claim. For, while we adhere to the principle of liberality in favour of the seafarer in construing the POEA-SEC, we cannot allow claims for disability compensation based on surmises. Liberal construction is never a license to disregard the evidence on record and to misapply the law.[46] In sum, the NLRC under the circumstances, was legally correct and acted well within its jurisdiction when it dismissed Ravena's complaint for lack of merit. Accordingly, in reversing the NLRC's decision, the CA legally erred as the NLRC did not commit grave abuse of discretion and, on the contrary, ruled in accordance with the law and jurisprudence. WHEREFORE, in light of these considerations, we hereby GRANT the petition. Accordingly, we REVERSE and SET ASIDE the decision dated November 11, 2011 and the resolution dated February 9, 2012 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. Sp No. 113331, and REINSTATE the decision dated June 30, 2009 of the National Labor Relations Commission in NLRC LAC No. (OFW-M) 07-000517-08. The complaint filed by Wilfredo E. Ravena is dismissed for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. Carpio, (Chairperson), Del Castillo, Villarama, Jr., and Leonen, JJ., concur. * Designated as Acting Member in lieu of Associate Justice Jose C. Mendoza, per Special Order No. 1767 dated August 27, 2014. [1] Rollo, pp. 43-58. [2] Penned by Associate Justice Fernanda Lampas-Peralta and concurred in by Associate Justices Normandie B. Pizarro and Agnes Reyes-Carpio, id. at 67-90. [3] Id. at 92. [4] Penned by Commissioner Gerardo C. Nograles, CA rollo, pp. 37-46. [5] Penned by Executive Labor Arbiter Fatima Jambaro-Franco, id. at 178-187. elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/57785 9/12