11/9/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly claimant to present substantial evidence that his work conditions caused or at least increased the risk of contracting the disease. In this case, however, petitioner relied on the presumption that his illness is work-related but he was unable to present substantial evidence to show that his work conditions caused or, at the least, increased the risk of contracting his illness. Neither was he able to prove that his illness was preexisting and that it was aggravated by the nature of his employment. Thus, the LA and the CA correctly ruled that he is not entitled to any disability compensation. [50] (Citations omitted) In this case, the petitioner failed to substantiate by clear evidence the causal connection between the strain of work, with the disability he alleges Aside from citing increased work due to lack of manpower, the petitioner was unable to show that it was the work itself that led to his difficult condition, especially considering that he himself admitted that he already had a pre-existing condition, as embodied in the findings of the PEME. While a pre-existing condition does not absolutely bar the chance that it could have been aggravated during the course of employment, the petitioner in this case failed to prove that it was exacerbated by the unusual strain brought about by the nature of his work. In Villanueva, Sr. v. Baliwag Navigation, Inc., et al.,[51] the Court held that a complainant must satisfy by substantial evidence the condition laid down in the contract that if the heart disease, such as the one herein, was known to have been present during employment, there must be proof that an acute exacerbation was clearly precipitated by the unusual strain brought about by the nature of his work.[52] The petitioner failed to do so, and for this and his lack of cooperation in fulfilling the procedural and substantive requirements in alleging total and permanent disability, the Court finds that the CA did not err in denying his disability claims. WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition for Review on Certiorari is hereby DENIED. The Decision dated January 22, 2016 of the Court of Appeals, and its Resolution dated July 10, 2016, in CA-G.R. SP No. 138514, are hereby AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED. Peralta (Chairperson), Leonen, Lazaro-Javier,[*] and Inting, JJ., concur. July 30, 2019 NOTICE OF JUDGMENT Sirs / Mesdames: Please take notice that on July 3, 2019 a Decision, copy attached hereto, was rendered by the Supreme Court in the above-entitled case, the original of which was received by this Office on July 30, 2019 at 2:59 p.m. Very truly yours, https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65376 10/15