8/26/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly In the assailed Decision, the CA dismissed Malicdem's petition for certiorari, thereby finding no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the NLRC for affirming the LA's ruling, to wit: In view of these considerations, the Court finds no grave abuse [of discretion] on the part of the NLRC in affirming the Labor Arbiter's ruling and in subsequently denying petitioner's motion for reconsideration. WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED.[41] According to the CA, the LA's and the NLRC's findings are supported by substantial evidence. The records are bereft of any showing that the documents required to be presented in compensation cases for hypertension under Section 32(A)(20) of the POEA-SEC were presented by Malicdem.[42] His bare claim that the food provisions on board the vessel exacerbated his hypertension is insufficient.[43] As for his glaucoma, the CA held that Malicdem cannot rely merely on the disputable presumption of workrelatedness provided under Section 20(B). He still had the burden to present substantial evidence that his working conditions caused or increased the risk of contracting the disease.[44] Malicdem failed to discharge this burden. On the contrary, the company-designated physician, Dr. Salvador, issued findings during Malicdem's first repatriation and after examining his condition, that his glaucoma is a non-work related condition.[45] Malicdem filed a Motion for Reconsideration[46] which was denied in the assailed Resolution dated May 13, 2016. Refusing to concede and after filing a Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review on Certiorari,[47] Malicdem filed the present Petition, raising the following issues: 1. WHETHER OR NOT THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS 5TH DIVISION COMMITTED A REVERSIBLE ERROR IN AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE HONORABLE NLRC 1ST DIVISION; 2. WHETHER OR NOT FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE MANDATORY THREE [3] DAY REPORTORIAL REQUIREMENT UNDER SECTION 20 [A] [3] OF THE 2010 POEA-SEC WILL RESULT IN THE FORFEITURE OF DISABILITY CLAIMS; 3. WHETHER OR NOT THE DISPUTABLE PRESUMPTION UNDER SECTION 20 [A] [4] OF THE 2010 POEA-SEC WORKS IN THE SEAFARER'S FAVOR; 4. WHETHER OR NOT PETITIONER PERMANENTLY DISABLED; and https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65276 IS TOTALLY AND 4/17