8/20/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly benefit, of employees and their dependents, with all doubts as to the right to compensation being resolved, and all presumptions indulged in their favor.[40] This liberal construction of the rules pertaining to compensability has been affirmed time and again, as in the recent case of Canuel v. Magsaysay Maritime Corporation,[41] where we said: However, a strict and literal construction of the 2000 POEA-SEC, especially when the same would result into inequitable consequences against labor, is not subscribed to in this jurisdiction. Concordant with the State's avowed policy to give maximum aid and full protection to labor as enshrined in Article XIII of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, contracts of labor, such as the 2000 POEA SEC, are deemed to be so impressed with public interest that the more beneficial conditions must be endeavoured in favor of the laborer. The rule therefore is one of liberal construction. x x x[42] (Emphasis supplied; citations omitted.) The application of the liberal construction in favor of labor in our jurisdiction and settled jurisprudence requires only that a reasonable connection between the nature of the occupation and the cause of death be established to entitle claimants to accountability, as aptly defined in the case of Wallem Maritime Services, Inc. v. NLRC:[43] It is not required that the employment be the sole factor in the growth, development or acceleration of the illness to entitle the claimant to the benefits provided therefor. It is enough that the employment had contributed, even in a small degree, to the development of the disease and in bringing about his death. It is indeed safe to presume that, at the very least, the nature of Faustino Inductive's employment had contributed to the aggravation of his illness-if indeed it was preexisting at the time of his employment and therefore it is but just that he be duly compensated for it. It cannot be denied that there was at least a reasonable connection between his job and his lung infection, which eventually developed into septicemia and ultimately caused his death. As a utility[ ]man on board the vessel, he was exposed to harsh sea weather, chemical irritants, dusts, etc., all of which invariably contributed to his illness. Neither is it necessary, in order to recover compensation, that the employee must have been in perfect condition or health at the time he contracted the disease. Every working[ ]man brings with him to his employment certain infirmities, and while the employer is not the insurer of the health of the employees, he takes them as he finds them and assumes the risk of liability. If the disease is the proximate cause of the employee's death for which compensation is sought, the previous physical condition of the employee is unimportant and recovery may be had therefor independent of any preexisting disease.[44] (Emphasis supplied; citation omitted.) elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/64957 5/9