5/28/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly benefits, illness allowance, reimbursement of medical expenses, damages and attorney’s fees, against the petitioners.[20] The Labor Arbitration Rulings Before the LA, the petitioners argued that there was no basis for Simbajon’s claim for disability benefits under the POEA-SEC because his illness was not work-related and did not arise during the term of his contract with NCL.[21] Simbajon was merely on his sixth day on board when he felt the symptoms for DM Type II. To the petitioners, this circumstance only means that Simbajon did not acquire his illness during the term of his contract; he already had a pre-existing disorder at the time of his embarkation.[22] Moreover, the petitioners asserted that Diabetes mellitus in general had been established under jurisprudence to be a disease that is not occupationally acquired.[23] Citing the cases of De Jesus v. ECC[24] and Millora v. ECC,[25] the petitioners claimed that Diabetes mellitus is a hereditary or developmental disorder that is not obtainable through exposure to harmful working conditions.[26] On the other hand, Simbajon contended that his disease was work-related. Although he exhibited the symptoms for DM Type II merely six days after boarding, he had been under the employ of NCL during his previous three completed contracts. Hence, his disease actually developed during the period of these contracts.[27] Simbajon also claimed entitlement to a Grade I (120%) impediment rating[28] notwithstanding the Grade VI (50%) rating given to his disability by Dr. Vicaldo. Citing Crystal Shipping, Inc. v. Natividad,[29] he argued that his inability to work as a result of his illness lasted for more than 120 days. The LA ruled that Simbajon’s disease is work-related and, therefore, compensable. It agreed with Simbajon that his work as a cook on board NCL’s vessel was strenuous and stressful enough to trigger his affliction with DM Type II.[30] Since the disease took more than 120 days to be treated, it could already be characterized as a permanent and total disability, entitling him to a Grade I (120%) impediment rating.[31] The petitioners appealed the LA’s decision to the NLRC. The NLRC granted the appeal and found Simbajon’s disease not to be work-related. It considered the period of six days from Simbajon’s embarkation as an insufficient period of exposure to contract a disease. The NLRC also gave credence to the petitioners’ assertion that Diabetes mellitus is essentially a hereditary, and not an occupational disease.[32] Simbajon unsuccessfully moved for the reconsideration[33] of the NLRC’s decision, prompting him to seek recourse with the CA via a petition for certiorari under Rule 65. [34] The CA’s Ruling elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/57289 3/16