4/20/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly 4) Castillon signed a quitclaim and received a check for P888,340.00 or roughly US$20,000.00.[4] Notwithstanding the aforementioned facts, the ponencia sided in favor of Castillon with the following findings and reasons: 1) Castillon's death during the pendency of his claim for compensation is compensable because it was work- related.[5] 2) Castillon's illness can be traced from his family history of malignancy as well as his working and living conditions while on board which contributed to his illness.[6] 3) Castillon's allegations—that he was given poor dietary provisions such as canned goods which are high in fat and cholesterol, that he worked for more than eight (8) hours a day, and that he was exposed to oil and fumes—were never disputed by the respondents.[7] 4) Castillon cannot be considered to have signed the quitclaim voluntarily as he was in desperate need of financial assistance for his chemotherapy and the amount given by respondent Magsaysay Mitsui OSK Marine, Inc. (Magsaysay) is hardly sufficient as he was legally entitled to US$65,000.00 instead of the US$20,000.00 that was given.[8] The aforementioned reasons, with all due respect to the majority's position, appear to be inconsistent with some basic legal precepts and tend to present long-term problems for those who are contemplating of seeking employment in the maritime industry. I. Evidence is not substantial enough to establish the fact that Castillon's colon cancer was work-related. It is an oft-repeated rule that the quantum of proof necessary in labor cases (as in other administrative and quasi-judicial proceedings) is substantial evidence, or such amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion.[9] And in a situation where the word of another party is taken against the other, as in this case, the Court must rely on substantial evidence because a party alleging a critical fact must duly substantiate and support such allegation.[10] Concomitantly, a reasonable proof of work-connection is sufficient to establish compensability of a non-occupational disease—a direct causal relation is not required. [11] And while the degree of determining whether the illness is work-related requires only probability, the conclusions of the courts must still be based on real, and not just https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/66406 27/35