5/28/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly fraudulent misrepresentation, his claim will still fail. It is evident from the foregoing medical reports of Drs. Dacanay and Vicaldo that when Margarito applied for and was given employment by the petitioners on July 26, 2005, he was already afflicted with diabetes. This means that he did not acquire his illness while working in the petitioner’s vessel and thus his diabetes is not work-related. A similar conclusion was arrived at in the recent Philman Marine Agency, Inc. v. Cabanban,[36] involving a seafarer who concealed during his PEME that he had hypertension, thus: x x x We note that Dr. Ranjan of the Fujairah Port Clinic stated in his report that Armando was a “known case of HT, on atenolol 50 mg OD [for five years].” The import of this statement cannot be disregarded as it directly points to Armando’s willful concealment; it also shows that Armando did not acquire hypertension during his employment and is therefore not work-related.[37] It is true that the pre-existence of an illness does not irrevocably bar compensability because disability laws still grant the same provided the seafarer’s working conditions bear causal connection with his illness.[38] These rules, however, cannot be asserted perfunctorily by the claimant as it is incumbent upon him to prove, by substantial evidence, as to how and why the nature of his work and working conditions contributed to and/or aggravated his illness.[39] The respondents failed to discharge this burden of proof. No evidence is on record showing the specific essential facts on how and why Margarito’s working conditions exacerbated his diabetes which in turn gave rise to its various complications, one of which led to his death. The respondents failed to particularly describe his working conditions while on sea duty. Also, no expert medical opinion was presented regarding the causes of his diabetes. On record are mere general statements presented as self-serving allegations which were not validated by any written document visibly demonstrating[40] that the working conditions on board the vessel served to worsen Margarito’s diabetes. In their petition before the CA, the respondents vaguely claimed: The work of the Chief Engineer, including the daily routines in the vessel’s engine department, necessarily expose[d] him to these factors emanating therefrom, in all kinds of weather conditions. x x x.[41] xxxx elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/57272 10/16