6/7/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly related injury or illness must have existed during the term of the seafarer's employment contract. In other words, to be entitled to compensation and benefits under this provision, it is not sufficient to establish that the seafarer's illness or injury has rendered him permanently or partially disabled; it must also be shown that there is a causal connection between the seafarer's illness or injury and the work for which he had been contracted.[13] The 2000 POEA-SEC defines "work-related injury" as "injury(ies) resulting in disability or death arising out of and in the course of employment" and "work-related illness" as "any sickness resulting to disability or death as a result of an occupational disease listed under Section 32-A of this contract with the conditions set therein satisfied." For an occupational disease and the resulting disability or death to be compensable, all of the following conditions must be satisfied: 1. The seafarer's work must involve the risks described herein; 2. The disease was contracted as a result of the seafarer's exposure to the describe[d] risks; 3. The disease was contracted within a period of exposure and under such other factors necessary to contract it; [and] 4. There was no notorious negligence on the part of the seafarer.[14] The ultimate question that needs to be addressed in the case at bar is whether or not the illness which caused the repatriation of petitioner is an occupational disease and thus compensable as permanent total disability under the circumstances. We rule in the affirmative. In dismissing the claim of petitioner that his ailment is compensable, the appellate court disregarded the rulings of both the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC and tilted the scale in favor of the employers who in turn, harped on the findings of the companydesignated physician that the condition of the petitioner is congenital in nature, and, that there is no way that it could be contracted while he was under their employ. We do not agree. To justify the grant of extraordinary remedy of certiorari, the petitioner must satisfactorily show that the court or quasi-judicial authority gravely abused the discretion conferred upon it. Grave abuse of discretion connotes a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment, done in a despotic manner by reason of passion or hostility, the character of which being so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined by or to act all in contemplation of law.[15] In labor disputes, grave abuse of discretion may be ascribed to the NLRC when, inter alia, its findings and conclusions are not supported by substantial evidence, or that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/61708 5/9