5/19/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly concealment of a pre-existing illness or condition on the part of the seafarer to be discharged from any liability. In this regard, an illness shall be considered as pre-existing if prior to the processing of the POEA contract, any of the following conditions is present, namely: (a) the advice of a medical doctor on treatment was given for such continuing illness or condition; or (b) the seafarer had been diagnosed and has knowledge of such illness or condition but failed to disclose the same during the PEME, and such cannot be diagnosed during the PEME.[87] (Emphasis supplied) In this case, petitioner denies that he knowingly concealed his medical history. He argues that respondents' failure to discover his shoulder injury during the examination precludes them from rejecting his compensation claim. Moreover, petitioner contends that the testimony of his workmates may not be given credence for not being verified. We reject petitioner's arguments. Petitioner knowingly concealed his history of shoulder dislocation from the respondents. As resolved by the labor tribunals and the Court of Appeals, petitioner had two instances of left shoulder dislocation prior to his employment—once in June 2015 and another in July 2015. Knowing that he had this recurring condition, petitioner should have disclosed this fact during his pre-employment medical examination. This nondisclosure is apparent in his medical certificate, wherein he answered "no" to the question "Is applicant suffering from any medical condition likely to be aggravated by service at sea or to render the seafarer unfit for service. . ,?"[88] Moreover, petitioner cannot bank on the fact that he was cleared during the preemployment medical examination. As jurisprudence has settled, this examination is not exploratory in nature and employers are not burdened to discover any and all preexisting medical condition of the seafarer during its conduct. Pre-employment medical examinations are only summary examinations. They only determine whether seafarers are fit to work and does not reflect a comprehensive, in-depth description of the health of an applicant. This is precisely why Section 20 (E) mandates the seafarer to disclose his or her medical history during the pre-employment medical examination. Further, petitioner contends that the affidavits of his co-workers should not be given credence as they were unverified. This contention must fail. Article 227 of the Labor Code provides that labor tribunals are not bound by technical rules of evidence and they may use all reasonable means to ascertain the facts of the case without regard to technicalities of law and procedure.[89] Thus, the testimonies of petitioner's crewmates may be accepted as evidence before the labor tribunals. Further, respondents were able to present evidence that petitioner did not perform any job at the day of the incident. The engine logbook shows that there was no pump or compeller maintenance on that day. This coincides with the testimony of petitioner's coworkers that they were playing billiards when petitioner's shoulder injury occurred. Intentional concealment of a pre-existing illness or injury is a ground for disqualification https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/66521 13/19