5/28/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly [T]he job of a chief engineer is strenuous and stressful. Moreover, [Margarito] was exposed to hostile working condition and environment. He was exposed to unhealthy diet on the board the vessel, extreme hot and cold weather and likewise he was exposed to hazardous chemicals and substances that are stored in the engine room of the vessel. x x x.[42] At the very least, these general statements surmise mere possibilities but not the probability required by law for disability compensation. Mere possibility will not suffice and a claim will still fail if there is only a possibility that the employment caused or aggravated the disease.[43] Even considering that the respondents have shown probability, their basis is, nonetheless incompetent for being uncorroborated. Probability of work-connection must at least be anchored on credible information[44] and not on self-serving allegations. Likewise deficient is Dr. Vicaldo’s one-line statement in his June 25, 2007 Medical Report that “[Margarito’s] illness is considered work aggravated/related”[45] as it did not supply the specific cause of Margarito’s diabetes. Certainly, disability compensation cannot rest on mere allegations couched in conjectures and baseless inferences from which work-aggravation or relatedness cannot be presumed. “[B]are allegations do not suffice to discharge the required quantum of proof of compensability. Awards of compensation cannot rest on speculations or presumptions. The beneficiaries must present evidence to prove a positive proposition.”[46] Moreover, the very nature of diabetes does not indicate work-relatedness. The World Health Organization defines diabetes mellitus as a metabolic disorder of multiple etiology characterized by chronic hyperglycemia with disturbances of carbohydrate, fat and protein metabolism resulting from defects in insulin secretion, insulin action, or both.[47] It is a metabolic and a familial disease to which one is pre-disposed by reason of heredity, obesity or old age.”[48] Definitely, work-relatedness cannot be deduced from heredity and old age. Neither can diabetes by reason of obesity be compensable owing to the fact that obesity is “excess body weight, defined as a body mass index (BMI) of = 30 kg/m2,” which ultimately results from a long-standing imbalance between energy intake and energy expenditure. It does not indicate work-relatedness and by its nature, is more the result of poor lifestyle choices and health habits for which disability benefits are improper.[49] While cerebrovascular accident which was the proximate cause of Margarito’s death is listed as an occupational disease under Section 32 of the POEA-SEC and the Implementing Rules and Regulations of Title II, Book VI of the Labor Code, its compensability, however, must conform to following additional conditions, viz: elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/57272 11/16