5/28/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly The CA reversed the NLRC’s ruling and granted Simbajon’s petition for certiorari.[35] For an illness or injury to be compensable, it is enough that reasonable proof of workconnection and not direct causal relation be proven by the claimant.[36] This was what Simbajon did. Notwithstanding the findings of the company-designated physician that Simbajon was already “fit to work,” the CA ruled that Simbajon must still be declared to have permanent and total disability. He was not able to perform his customary work for more than 120 days. The CA subsequently denied the petitioners’ motion for reconsideration, prompting them to come to this Court on a petition for review under Rule 45. The Petition The petitioners submit that the CA did not rule in accordance with the applicable law and jurisprudence when it found that: a) Diabetes mellitus is not always a familial or hereditary disease; and b) Simbajon is entitled (i) to permanent and total disability benefits since he was not able to work for more than 120 days, and (ii) to an award of attorney’s fees.[37] The petitioners question the CA’s ruling that Simbajon’s DM Type II was a work-related condition, aggravated by the supposedly stressful working conditions on board.[38] Simbajon’s evidence is insufficient to establish the hostile working environment and emotional turmoil he underwent.[39] Six days are not enough for Simbajon to be exposed to the necessary factors for him to contract his disease.[40] The petitioners further argue that under the POEA-SEC, a seafarer, who is unable to work for more than 120 days, is not automatically entitled to permanent and total disability compensation unless there is first a determination that an illness or injury is work-related.[41] Lastly, the petitioners maintain that the award of attorney’s fees should be deleted as there was no showing that Simbajon was compelled to litigate his claim because of bad faith on the petitioners’ part.[42] The Case for Simbajon In his comment,[43] Simbajon prayed for the dismissal of the petition on the following grounds: a) the CA correctly held that his illness is work-related and/or aggravated, hence, compensable under the POEA-SEC; b) the CA correctly held that his disability is total and permanent; and c) he is entitled to an award of attorney’s fees.[44] Simbajon submits that he had no family history of Diabetes mellitus and that he only acquired this illness during the period that he worked for NCL as a cook.[45] He also elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/57289 4/16