5/19/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly shoulder dislocations in the past. Respondents claim this concealment exempts them from any obligation for the subsequent manifestation of the injury.[46] Moreover, respondents stress that petitioner failed to refute their evidence and deny his previous episodes of shoulder dislocation.[47] They claim that petitioner likewise cannot capitalize on his pre-employment medical examination clearance because it is possible that his injury was not apparent at the time he was examined, making it difficult to detect. Further, they argue that it is the seafarers' duty to disclose their medical history.[48] Respondents also argue that petitioner did not establish that his injury was work related.[49] They point out that petitioner's claim that he was lifting a heavy object when his shoulder snapped is baseless. They claim that petitioner neither identified the time and place of the incident nor the object he was lifting. To support this, Respondents presented an engine logbook showing that on the day of the incident, there was no pump or compeller maintenance, which is usually done by a fitter.[50] They posit that petitioner's shoulder injury occurred during a billiard game,[51] and an injury during an off- duty incident should not be compensable because it is not workrelated.[52] Moreover, respondents contend that petitioner is not entitled to damages and attorney's fees as they did not act in bad faith in rejecting his disability claim.[53] In his Reply,[54] petitioner reiterates that there is no fraudulent misrepresentation on his part.[55] He adds that there is a presumption of fitness which was uncontroverted by evidence.[56] He refers to respondents' verified undertaking during the issuance of a license to engage Filipino seafarers, which states that it shall "deploy only technically qualified and medical fit applicants."[57] Moreover, petitioner argues that, at the very least, his nature of employment had contributed to the aggravation of his shoulder injury.[58] Work-relatedness is apparent in the nature of his job as a fitter which requires manual work. In fact, he claims his injury occurred while he was working and carrying a heavy object. Assuming his injury is not work-related, petitioner avers that he is still entitled to disability benefits because his injury occurred during the effectivity of the contract and the POEA Standard Employment Contract does not specify that the injury or illness be work-related for it to be compensable.[59] The sole issue for this Court's resolution is whether or not petitioner is entitled to permanent and total disability benefits. Subsumed under this issue are the following: (1) Whether or not the respondents complied with their obligation of referral to a company-designated physician; and (2) Whether or not petitioner is disqualified from claiming disability benefits due to https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/66521 5/19