5/19/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly Feeling aggrieved, petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration.[23] On May 10, 2018, the CA issued the assailed Resolution[24] denying the motion. Hence, the instant petition. Issues THAT RESPONDENT-SEAFARER'S SIGN OFF FROM THE VESSEL WAS DUE TO WORK-RELATED MEDICAL GROUNDS CANNOT BE PRESUMED. RECORDS OF THIS CASE REVEAL THAT RESPONDENT SIGNED OFF ON 15 JULY 2008 DUE TO HIS VOLUNTARY REQUEST. CIRCUMSTANCES SUBSEQUENT TO RESPONDENT'S SIGN OFF BELIE THE CLAIM. RESPONDENT DID NOT DEMAND FOR POST-EMPLOYMENT MEDICAL EXAMINATION WITHIN 3 DAYS FROM ARRIVAL - INSTEAD HE RECEIVED HIS FINAL WAGES ON 23 JULY 2008. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM, RESPONDENT PRESENTED A MEDICAL ABSTRACT DATED 20 FEBRUARY 2009, 7 MONTHS AFTER HIS SIGN OFF. MEANWHILE, THE COMPLAINT FOR DISABILITY COMPENSATION WAS FILED ONLY ON 26 JANUARY 2011, ALMOST 3 YEARS AFTER SIGN OFF. THERE IS NO PROOF ON RECORD THAT RESPONDENT'S ALLEGED ILLNESS IS WORK-RELATED. UNDER THE POEA CONTRACT, ONLY WORK-RELATED ILLNESSES SUFFERED DURING THE TERM OF EMPLOYMENT ARE COMPENSABLE, WORK-RELATION CANNOT BE PRESUMED. NO LESS THAN THE SUPREME COURT HAS RULED THAT THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO PROVE WORK-RELATION BELONGS TO THE SEAFARER WHO IS CLAIMING COMPENSATION. THE CLAIM WAS DENIED BY PETITIONERS ON JUST AND VALID GROUNDS. RESPONDENT IS NOT ENTITLED TO ATTORNEY'S FEES.[25] (Italics in the original.) Our Ruling The petition is without merit. "Preliminarily the Court stresses the distinct approach in reviewing a CA's ruling in a labor case. In a Rule 45 review, the Court examines the correctness of the CA's Decision in contrast with the review of jurisdictional errors under Rule 65. Furthermore, Rule 45 limits the review to questions of law. In ruling for legal correctness, the Court views the CA Decision in the same context that the petition for certiorari was presented to the CA. Hence, the Court has to examine the CA's Decision from the prism of whether the CA correctly determined the presence or absence of grave abuse of discretion in the NLRC decision."[26] "In labor case, grave abuse of discretion may be ascribed to the NLRC when its findings https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/66350 4/11