4/20/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly even if respondents' silence regarding M/V Amethyst Ace's poor dietary provisions are to be taken as an admission, the same falls short of the required quantum of proof required to establish work-relatedness because it is merely speculative as a probable factor of Castillon's colon cancer. Thus, the evidence is not substantial enough to prove that Castillon's diet onboard the vessel caused or contributed to the development of his colon cancer. LAST, a pre-employment medical examination (PEME) is not exploratory and may not be relied upon to produce information regarding a seafarer's true state of health.[21] It is not intended to be a totally in-depth and thorough examination of an applicant's medical condition.[22] This jurisprudential observation applies to asymptomatic illnesses such as colon cancer which, as discussed earlier, usually appear only at a more advanced stage of the disease. An asymptomatic illness cannot reasonably be detected during a PEME as the same procedure is routinary. It is only when patients complain of discomfort or pain that routinary procedures, such as the PEME, can be extended by the examining physician through additional medical tests which may lead to the eventual diagnosis of an underlying illness. However, the presumption of work-relatedness cannot be reasonably relied upon to support a claim of compensation just because the PEME is non-exploratory. At best, the inadequacy of the PEME in diagnosing or detecting a disease can only overcome an employer's defense that the illness suffered by a seafarer should not be considered as work-related as it was not found to be existing at the time of employment. Such presumption, even if sometimes supported by probability, cannot by itself be reasonably interpreted to automatically mean, establish or substantiate a claim of a seafarer's illness being work-related. At the very least, circumstantial evidence has to be offered to prove the "reasonable link" between the nature or conditions of work and the seafarer's purported resultant illness. II. General principles such as social justice cannot supplant the requirement of establishing facts or inferences by evidence. Time and again, the Court has ruled that the social justice provisions of the Constitution are not self-executing principles ready for enforcement through the courts —they are merely statements of principles and policies.[23] In other words, they are merely guidelines for legislation.[24] As such, social justice principles need legislative enactments before they can be implemented.[25] Conversely, the protective mantle of social justice cannot be utilized as an instrument to hoodwink courts of justice.[26] In relation to the administration of justice, procedural rules are not to be belittled or dismissed simply because their non-observance may https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/66406 29/35