6/7/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly have probably triggered the occurrence of his sebaceous cyst.[172] Madridejos has not enumerated either the scope of his job or his regular tasks as a Demi Chef that would supposedly show the correlation of his employment to the development of his cyst. Similarly, he has failed to provide this Court with an overview of significant working conditions that might have possibly contributed to the acquisition or aggravation of his illness. Instead, he has merely made sweeping assertions about it. Regrettably, Madridejos has failed to prove that the development of cyst was due to the nature of his job as a Demi Chef. For this reason, this Court cannot presuppose that it is work-related. Furthermore, it was already settled that Madridejos was not repatriated due to his alleged medical condition but due to the expiration of his contract as a probationary employee. For this reason, therefore, it becomes unnecessary for NYK-FIL to overcome the disputable presumption that Madridejos' illness was work-related. IV Madridejos insists that his Pre-Employment Medical Examination showed that he was "fit to work" before he commenced employment.[173] This proves that he incurred his illness during his service and was only aggravated when he was on board.[174] "A seafarer only needs to pass the mandatory [Pre-Employment Medical Examination] in order to be deployed on duty at sea."[175] A Pre-Employment Medical Examination cannot be relied upon to reflect a "seafarer's true state of health" since it is not exploratory and may just disclose enough for employers to decide whether a "seafarer is fit for overseas employment."[176] Due to the nature of a Pre-Employment Medical Examination, it is possible that Madridejos' sebaceous cyst was not detected prior to his employment. Nevertheless, NYK-FIL has not been remiss in its duty to provide Madridejos with all the necessary aid. When he was diagnosed with a sebaceous cyst, he was immediately referred to a hospital where all the expenses were shouldered by the company.[177] This assertion was not contradicted by Madridejos. Given that Madridejos' repatriation was due to the termination of his service contract, there was no bad faith on the part of NYK-FIL. Accordingly, we deny Madridejos' claim for moral damages and attorney's fees. The Constitutional mandate in providing full protection to labor "is not meant to be a sword to oppress employers."[178] This Court's assurance to this policy does not stop us from upholding "the employer when it is in the right."[179] Thus, when evidence contradicts compensability, the claim cannot prosper, otherwise it "causes injustice to the employer."[180] WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The assailed September 26, 2012 and elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/63066 14/25