6/7/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly the nature of work onboard the vessel and the illness contracted or aggravated. In Quizora v. Denholm Crew Management (Phils.), Inc.,[79] Quizora argued that he did not have the burden to prove that his illness was work-related because it was disputably presumed by law.[80] This court ruled that Quizora "cannot simply rely on the disputable presumption provision mention in Section 20 (B) (4) of the 2000 POEASEC."[81] This court further discussed that: 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 POEA-SEC, two elements must concur: (1) the injury or illness must be work-related; 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 3 2-A of this contract with the conditions set therein satisfied.[82] (Emphasis in the original) The ruling in Quizora was restated in Ayungo v. Beamko Shipmanagement Corporation: [83] In other words, not only must the seafarer establish that his injury or illness rendered him permanently or partially disabled, it is equally pertinent that he shows a causal connection between such injury or illness and the work for which he had been contracted.[84] (Citation omitted) elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/61719 11/26