8/26/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly Rule 45 petitions, save for some exceptions.[71] However, inasmuch as factual findings of administrative or quasi-judicial bodies, including labor tribunals, are accorded much respect by the Court as they are specialized to rule on matters falling within their jurisdiction, these findings are only binding when supported by substantial evidence. [72] On this note, the Court confirms that the findings of the herein labor tribunals, as affirmed by the CA, that Malicdem's illnesses — hypertension and glaucoma — are not compensable under the POEA-SEC are correct and properly supported by substantial evidence on record. Ho ever, a number of clarifications must be made. First of all, both the NLRC and the CA treated Malicdem's hypertension as a listed occupational disease, citing Section 32(A)(20) of the 2000 POEA-SEC which provides: 20. Essential Hypertension. Hypertension classified as primary or essential is considered compensable if it causes impairment of function of body organs like kidneys, heart, eyes and brain, resulting in permanent disability; Provided, that the following documents substantiate it: (a) chest x-ray report, (b) ECG report, (c) blood chemistry report, (d) funduscopy report, and (e) C-T scan. However, the foregoing provision no longer appears in the 2010 POEA-SEC which applies in the present case. In other words, under the 2010 POEA-SEC, Malicdem's hypertension is no longer a listed occupational disease. In this light, both of Malicdem's claimed illnesses — hypertension and glaucoma — are non-listed occupational diseases under the applicable contract, i.e., the 2010 POEASEC. Nevertheless, they may be compensable subject to the parameters laid down by jurisprudence and the POEA-SEC. Section 20(A)(4) of the 2010 POEA-SEC creates a disputable presumption that illnesses not listed as an occupational disease in Section 32 are work-related. This disputable presumption is made in the law to signify that the non-inclusion in the list of compensable diseases/illnesses does not translate to an absolute exclusion from disability benefits. At the same time, however, this disputable presumption does not signify an automatic grant of compensation and/or benefits claim.[73] Hence, despite the presumption, the Court has held that, on due process grounds, the claimant-seafarer must still prove by substantial evidence that his work conditions caused or, at least, increased the risk of contracting the disease, as awards of compensation cannot rest entirely on bare assertions and presumptions.[74] In this light, the claimant must prove, not that his illness is work-related, but that the same is ultimately compensable by satisfying the conditions for compensability under Section 32(A) of the 2000 POEA-SEC, to wit: For an occupational disease and the resulting disability or death to be compensable, all of the following conditions must be satisfied: 1) The seafarers work must involve the risks described herein; https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65276 9/17