4/20/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly of fact raised by petitioners. II For a seafarer's death to be compensable, the 2010 Philippine Overseas Employment Administration Standard Employment Contract stipulates that the claimants must establish that (a) the seafarer's death is work-related, and (b) the death occurred during the term of the employment contract.[70] Work-relatedness requires a "reasonable linkage between the disease suffered by the employee and his work."[71] The Philippine Overseas Employment Administration Standard Employment Contract defines "work-related illness" as "any sickness as a result of an occupational disease listed under Section 3 2-A of this Contract with the conditions set therein satisfied."[72] In instances where the illness or disease does not fall under Section 32-A, Section 20(A)(4) states that a disputable presumption arises that the illness or disease is work-related.[73] In Romana v. Magsaysay Maritime Corp.: [74] The legal presumption of work-relatedness was borne out from the fact that the said list cannot account for all known and unknown illnesses/diseases that may be associated with, caused or aggravated by such working conditions, and that the presumption is made in the law to signify that the non-inclusion in the list of occupational diseases does not translate to an absolute exclusion from disability benefits. Given the legal presumption in favor of the seafarer, he may rely on and invoke such legal presumption to establish a fact in issue. The effect of a presumption upon the burden of proof is to create the need of presenting evidence to overcome the prima facie case created, thereby which, if no contrary proof is offered, will prevail. [75] However, the presumption of work-relatedness established under Section 20(A)(4) is not tantamount to a presumption of compensability. In Romana: The established work-relatedness of an illness does not, however, mean that the resulting disability is automatically compensable. As also discussed, the seafarer, while not needing to prove the work-relatedness of his illness, bears the burden of proving compliance with the conditions of compensability under Section 32 (A) of the 2000 POEA-SEC. Failure to do so will result in the dismissal of his claim. Notably, it must be pointed out that the seafarer will, in all instances, have to prove compliance with the conditions for compensability, whether or not the work-relatedness of his illness is disputed by the employer.[76] Nevertheless, the presumption of work-relatedness, like any presumption, may be controverted by the contrary evidence. The employer or principal may show that the conditions on board the vessel were such that there can be reasonable conclusion that the condition of the claimant could not have been aggravated by his work. https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/66406 8/35