6/7/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly shortness of breath and chest pains following his work painting the ship's pump room. To note, respondents have not refuted having assigned to complainant such task. Adding in complainant's poor diet, advanced age (he was 52 at the time of the filing of the complaint), the stressful nature of his employment, and repeated hiring of his services by respondents, we find it reasonable to conclude that complainant's work as Able Seaman caused or contributed even to a small degree to the development or aggravation of complainant's heart disease. As for the second element, we note that complainant was repatriated in July 2012. Only about four months thereafter, he was discovered to have heart disease in November 2012. Simply, complainant's heart disease could not have developed during that short period between his repatriation and medical examination. Complainant acquired or developed his illness during the term of his contract. Curiously, both parties failed to present complainant's PEME results with respect to his last employment on board MT North Star. Nonetheless, since he was accepted and deployed by respondents, it is safe to say that he passed the PEME without any finding that he had a pre-existing heart ailment, or that respondents accepted him despite being aware of his condition. In any case, respondents, in hiring complainant despite his advanced age and pre-existing hypertension, assumed the risk of liability for his health. They cannot be allowed to subsequently evade such liability by claiming that complainant's illness was discovered only after his employment was terminated.[23] The above findings of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC clearly show how petitioner acquired or developed his illness during the term of his contract. The CA reversed the NLRC decision by ruling that nothing in the records, documentation or medical report, show that petitioner contracted his illness aboard M/T North Star, however, despite such, the fact that petitioner was able to pass his PEME without any finding that he had a pre-existing heart ailment before boarding the vessel and later on finding, after the termination of his contract that he has acquired the said heart ailment, one can conclude that such illness developed while he was on board the same vessel. The work assigned to the petitioner (i.e., painting the ship's pump room), poor diet, advanced age, the stressful nature of his employment, and repeated hiring of his services by respondents, would all lead to the conclusion that the work of petitioner as Able Seaman caused or contributed even to a small degree to the development or aggravation of complainant's heart disease. In determining whether a disease is compensable, it is enough that there exists a reasonable work connection.[24] It is sufficient that the hypothesis on which the workmen's claim is based is probable since probability, not certainty is the touchstone.[25] The CA also ruled that petitioner failed to submit himself to the mandatory postemployment medical examination within three (3) days from his arrival in the Philippines and neither was there any indication that he was physically incapacitated to do so. Petitioner, on the other hand, claims that it was the respondents who failed to refer him to a company-designated physician for medical treatment. It must be elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/64110 7/11