6/7/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly medical studies, given that petitioner's BPH was a common condition for aging men due to their hormonal imbalance.[67] It noted that even petitioner's independent physician failed to provide any medical explanation that would establish reasonable connection between his working condition and illness.[68] Finally, the CA ruled that since Elburg, Rizzo, and Ancheta (respondents) failed to appeal the LA's Decision granting petitioner his claim for sickness allowance and attorney's fees, the same can no longer be modified or reviewed, and thus, was sustained.[69] Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration,[70] which was denied in a Resolution[71] dated July 4, 2016; hence, this petition. The Issue Before the Court The essential issue for the Court's resolution is whether or not the CA erred in holding that the NLRC gravely abused its discretion when it ruled that petitioner was entitled to total and permanent disability benefits. The Court's Ruling The petition is denied. It is basic that the entitlement of a seafarer on overseas employment to disability benefits is governed by the medical findings, the law, and the parties' contract. The material statutory provisions are Articles 197 to 199[72] (formerly Articles 191 to 193) [73] of the Labor Code in relation to Section 2 (a), Rule X[74] of the Amended Rules on Employees' Compensation (AREC),[75] while the relevant contracts are the POEA-SEC, the parties' Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA), if any, and the employment agreement between the seafarer and the employer. In this case, petitioner executed his employment contract with respondents during the effectivity of the 2010 POEA-SEC; hence, its provisions are applicable and should govern their relations. Pursuant to the 2010 POEA-SEC, the employer is liable for disability benefits when the seafarer suffers from a work-related injury or illness during the term of his contract. In this regard, Section 20 (E) thereof, mandates the seafarer to disclose all his preexisting illnesses in his PEME, failing which, shall disqualify him from receiving the same, to wit: E. A seafarer who knowingly conceals a pre-existing illness or condition in the Pre-Employment Medical Examination (PEME) shall be liable for misrepresentation and shall be disqualified from any compensation and benefits. This is likewise a just cause for termination of employment and imposition of appropriate administrative sanctions. Here, contrary to the findings of the C A, there was no concealment on the part of petitioner when he failed to disclose in his 2013 PEME that he was previously treated for prostatitis in 2011. As culled from the records, respondents were well aware of petitioner's past medical history given that the company-designated physician was able to provide a detailed medical history of the latter in the Medical Report dated May 2, 2014 which showed all of his past illnesses, the year he was treated and where he elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/63721 5/13