G. R. No. 179177 20 of 29 http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/179177.htm [70] Commission, we awarded benefits to the heirs of the seafarer therein who worked as a radioman on board a vessel; and who, after ten months from his latest deployment, suffered from bouts of coughing and shortness of breath, necessitating open heart surgery. We found in said case that the seafarers work exposed him to different climates and unpredictable weather, which could trigger a heart attack or heart failure. We likewise ruled in said case that the seafarer had served the contract for a significantly long amount of time, and that his employment had contributed, even to a small degree, to the development and exacerbation of his disease. [71] In the instant case, records reveal that petitioner Nisda had been deployed by respondent ADAMS numerous times in a span of 15 years, under several employment contracts. Petitioner Nisda was first hired and deployed by respondent ADAMS as a Tug Boat Master in 1987. He was immediately hired and deployed again by respondent ADAMS after the expiration of each employment contract. Through the years, petitioner Nisda worked for respondent ADAMS essentially under the same or closely similar conditions, i.e., 48-hour work weeks with a maximum of 105 hours of overtime. If we found in Seagull Shipmanagement that the different climates and unpredictable weather, as well as the stress of the job, had a correlation with the heart disease of a seafarer working as a radioman on a vessel, then what more in the heart disease of a seafarer serving as a ship master, a position involving more strain and pressure? A Tug (boat) Master is primarily tasked to operate tug boats, a powerful marine vessel that meets [72] large ships out at sea and attach a line to guide/steer the same into and out of berths. In operating such a powerful vessel, a Tug Master requires not just a thorough knowledge of the port environment in which he is operating, but a high level of skill as well. In fact, in the case at bar, respondent ADAMS recognized how grueling petitioner Nisdas job was, according the latter a month of paid vacation every three months of straight service. Thus, more than a reasonable connection between the nature of petitioner Nisdas job and his Coronary Artery Disease has been established. Petitioner Nisda was able to sufficiently prove, by substantial evidence, that his Coronary Artery Disease was work-related, given the arduous nature of his job that caused his disease or, at least, aggravated any pre-existing condition he might have had. Respondents Sea Serve and ADAMS, on the other hand, utterly failed to refute the said connection. Respondents Sea Serve and ADAMS cannot rely on the seemingly imprecise 1/28/2016 1:07 PM