5/28/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly subjected to PEME: “Based on patient’s Pre-Employment Medical Examination dated July 21, 2005, patient has unremarkable past medical history and was pronounced fit to work as seaman during that time. However, during patient’s initial evaluation, he claimed to be diabetic for almost 6 years and was diagnosed in a clinic in Parañaque and was maintained on Metformin 500mg since then. He was seen by a Nephrologist during his initial evaluation who agreed with the diagnosis of Chronic Kidney Disease secondary to Diabetic Nephropathy.”[32] (Emphasis ours) This is confirmed by the medical evaluation of Margarito’s own physician, Dr. Vicaldo stating as follows: This patient/seaman presented with history of nausea and anorexia noted in June 2006 for which he was seen in United Arab Emirates. He underwent blood chemistry examination and abdominal ultrasound and was diagnosed as kidney disease (sic). History revealed that he is also a known diabetic for six years now and maintained on Metformin three times a day. x x x x[33] (Emphasis supplied) The fact that Margarito passed his PEME cannot excuse his willful concealment nor can it preclude the petitioners from rejecting his disability claims. PEME is not exploratory and does not allow the employer to discover any and all pre-existing medical condition with which the seafarer is suffering and for which he may be presently taking medication. The PEME is nothing more than a summary examination of the seafarer’s physiological condition;[34] it merely determines whether one is “fit to work” at sea or “fit for sea service” and it does not state the real state of health of an applicant. The “fit to work” declaration in the PEME cannot be a conclusive proof to show that he was free from any ailment prior to his deployment.[35] Thus, for knowingly concealing his diabetes during the PEME, Margarito committed fraudulent misrepresentation which under the POEA-SEC unconditionally barred his right to receive any disability compensation or illness benefit. This finding renders any issue on work-relatedness irrelevant since the premise which bars disability compensation is the fraudulent misrepresentation of a pre-existing disease and not the fact that it was pre-existing. Even if we were to disregard Margarito’s elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/57272 9/16