6/8/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly In effect, POEA Memorandum Circular No. 11-00 thereby paved the way for the application of the POEA Standard Employment Contract based on POEA Memorandum Circular No. 055, series of 1996. Worth noting, Jerry boarded the ship [in] August 2001 before the said temporary restraining order was lifted on June 5, 2002 by virtue of Memorandum Circular No. 2, series of 2002. Consequently, Jerry’s employment contract with Coastal must conform to Section 20(A) of the POEA Standard Employment Contract based on POEA Memorandum Circular No. 055, series of 1996, in determining compensability of Jerry’s death. [Emphases supplied] Thus, petitioner cannot simply rely on the disputable presumption provision mentioned in Section 20 (B) (4) of the 2000 POEA-SEC. As he did so without solid proof of workrelation and work-causation or work-aggravation of his illness, the Court cannot provide him relief. At any rate, granting that the provisions of the 2000 POEA-SEC apply, the disputable presumption provision in Section 20 (B) does not allow him to just sit down and wait for respondent company to present evidence to overcome the disputable presumption of work-relatedness of the illness. Contrary to his position, he still has to substantiate his claim in order to be entitled to disability compensation. He has to prove that the illness he suffered was work-related and that it must have existed during the term of his employment contract. He cannot simply argue that the burden of proof belongs to respondent company. For disability to be compensable under Section 20 (B) of the 2000 POEASEC, two elements must concur: (1) the injury or illness must be workrelated; and (2) the work-related injury or illness must have existed during the term of the seafarer’s employment contract. In other words, to be entitled to compensation and benefits under this provision, it is not sufficient to establish that the seafarer’s illness or injury has rendered him permanently or partially disabled; it must also be shown that there is a causal connection between the seafarer’s illness or injury and the work for which he had been contracted. The 2000 POEA-SEC defines “work-related injury” as “injury[ies] resulting in disability or death arising out of and in the course of employment” and “work-related illness” as “any sickness resulting to disability or death as a result of an occupational disease listed under Section 32-A of this contract with the conditions set therein satisfied.[5] Unfortunately for petitioner, he failed to prove that his varicose veins arose out of his employment with respondent company. Except for his bare allegation that it was workrelated, he did not narrate in detail the nature of his work as a messman aboard Denklav’s vessels. He likewise failed to particularly describe his working conditions elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/26253 8/11