5/28/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly The Court denies the Petition. The only issue in this case is whether Bengson’s illness – which petitioners claim and admit to be hypertensive cardio-vascular disease (HCVD) not in failure, CVD infarct left thalamocapsular – is an occupational disease. In many cases decided in the past, this Court has held that cardiovascular disease, coronary artery disease, and other heart ailments are compensable. Thus, in Fil-Pride Shipping Company, Inc. v. Balasta,[28] severe 3-vessel coronary artery disease which the seaman contracted while serving as Able Seaman was considered an occupational disease. In Villanueva, Sr. v. Baliwag Navigation, Inc.,[29] it was held that the 2000 POEA-SEC considers heart disease as an occupational disease. In Jebsens Maritime, Inc. v. Undag,[30] the Court held that hypertensive cardiovascular disease may be a compensable illness, upon proof. In Oriental Shipmanagement Co., Inc. v. Bastol[31] and Heirs of the late Aniban v. National Labor Relations Commission,[32] it was held that myocardial infarction as a disease or cause of death is compensable, such being occupational. Iloreta v. Philippine Transmarine Carriers, Inc.[33] held that hypertensive cardiovascular disease/coronary artery disease and chronic stable angina are compensable. Micronesia Resources v. Cantomayor[34] stated that a finding of coronary artery disease entitles the claimant – a seaman Third Officer – to disability compensation. In Remigio v. National Labor Relations Commission,[35] the Court held that the claimant – a musician on board an ocean-going vessel – was entitled to recover for suffering from coronary artery disease. In Sepulveda v. Employees’ Compensation Commission,[36] it was declared that the employee’s illness, myocardial infarction, was directly brought about by his employment as schoolteacher or was a result of the nature of such employment. In the present case, petitioners flatly claim that Bengson’s hypertensive cardio-vascular disease is not compensable on the sole basis of its company-designated physician Agbayani’s declaration that such illness is not work-related. However, the Court finds that Bengson’s illness is work-related. The undisputed facts indicate that respondent has been working for petitioners since 1988; that per his service record,[37] he has been serving as Third Mate for twelve (12) years; and that as Third Mate, he was saddled with heavy responsibilities relative to navigation of the vessel, ship safety and management of emergencies. It is beyond doubt that respondent was subjected to physical and mental stress and strain: as Third Mate, he is the ship’s fourth in command, and he is the ship’s safety officer; these responsibilities have been heavy burdens on respondent’s shoulders all these years, and certainly contributed to the development of his illness. Besides, “[i]t is already recognized that any kind of work or labor produces stress and strain normally resulting in wear and tear of the human body.”[38] “Notably, it is a matter of judicial notice that an overseas worker, having to ward off homesickness by reason of being physically separated from his family for the entire duration of his contract, bears a great degree of emotional strain while making an effort to perform his work well. The strain is even greater in the elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/57809 7/13