8/26/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly and therefore not work-related. The CDP, an endocrinologist[92] and thus an expert on Tiquio's condition, explained, in his Affidavit[93] dated October 16, 2014, the nature of this disease as backed by the medical literature on the same. To refute the assessment, Tiquio simply relied on the medical certificate[94] issued by his doctor, Dr. San Luis, which concluded that his illness "could have been triggered by the physical and mental stress related to his job" and "by exposure to paint solvents and other chemicals."[95] The Court, however, observes that Dr. San Luis is indisputably not an endocrinologist nor an expert on the particular disease – as he is a neurologist[96] – and whose assessment on Tiquio's condition was limited to a single encounter. Moreover, the Court recognizes that, as discussed above, there are in fact several known risk factors that increase the chance of developing the disease, i.e., genetics, age, weight, medications, ethnicity, and other autoimmune disease, none of which has been shown in this case to have any causal connection with Tiquio's duties as an ordinary seaman. While indeed stress is a known risk factor, there is nothing, however, in the records which demonstrates the nature and extent of the stress to which Tiquio was allegedly exposed that could have triggered or aggravated his condition. Further, as regards Tiquio's alleged exposure to paint solvents and other chemicals, the Court finds nothing in the records which showed that the nature of his duties involved the same, and that such exposure contributed to the development of his illness. Notably, exposure to chemicals and paint solvents is not a known risk factor for developing Graves' Disease, and thus medical literature does not support Tiquio's assertions on the same. Accordingly, the Court cannot make a proper determination thereof, considering that, as the NLRC noted, Tiquio "did not even attempt to establish a causal connection between his functions as an ordinary [seaman] with the risks of contracting hyperthyroidism."[97] To be sure, the Court is aware of the ruling in Magsaysay,[98] relied upon by the CA, which granted the disability benefits claim of therein seafarer-claimant who was found to be suffering from hyperthyroidism by his chosen physician. It is well to point out, however, that the present case should be differentiated from Magsaysay for not only did therein petitioners Magsaysay Maritime Services and Princess Cruise Lines, Ltd. fail to explain or present evidence supporting the not work-related assessment of the CDP, who was not shown to be an expert on the disease, therein respondent seafarer Erlwin Meinrad Antero F. Laurel also sufficiently showed how his duties as a second pastryman and the conditions on board the vessel caused or aggravated his hyperthyroidism.[99] Here, and as discussed, petitioners were able to successfully debunk the presumption of work-relatedness and concomitantly, Tiquio failed to prove by substantial evidence his compliance with the conditions for compensabihty set forth under Section 32-A of the 2010 POEA-SEC. Thus, Tiquio's claim for disability benefits should be denied. All told, no grave abuse of discretion can be attributed to the NLRC in dismissing Tiquio's complaint. Accordingly, a reversal of the CA Decision is warranted. WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated February 7, 2018 and the Resolution dated August 30, 2018 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 145518 https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65357 10/20