8/20/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly the Medical Report[33] dated December 16, 2011 issued by the physician who attended Torillos in Newcastle, England did not mention that his injury was caused by an accident on board but instead noted that the primary cause of the injury was: "Pain occurred at his right leg up to his pelvis during standing for a long period of time." Hence, Torillos' claim that he met an accident on board was based on pure allegations. It is basic that Torillos must prove his own assertions and his failure to discharge the burden of proving that he was covered by the CBA militates against his entitlement to any of its benefits.[34] Torillos' reliance on the Court's ruling in NFD Int'l Manning Agents, Inc./Barber Ship Mgmt. Ltd. v. Illescas[35] is misplaced. In the Illescas case, the Court held that Illescas' disability, while not caused by an accident, was still compensable under the CBA as the CBA contained a permanent medical unfitness clause which stated that a seafarer who becomes disabled as a result of any injury shall be entitled to compensation. This is not the case here. As aptly observed by the CA, there was no similar provision in the IBF JSU/AMOSUP-IMMAJ, which is the CBA effective at the time of Torillos' employment with Eastgate. The grant of disability benefits under the IBF JSU/AMOSUP-IMMAJ CBA is confined only to "xxx accident whilst in the employment of the Company regardless of fault, including accidents occurring while travelling to or from the ship, and whose ability to work as a seafarer is reduced as a result thereof, but excluding permanent disability due to willful acts, x x x".[36] As discussed, Torillos failed to prove by substantial evidence that his disability was caused by an accident, hence, there is no basis in awarding him disability benefits under the CBA. As we find the CBA inapplicable, Torillos' entitlement to disability benefits is therefore governed by the POEA-SEC and relevant labor laws which are deemed written in the contract of employment with Eastgate. Torillos suffers from a work-related and compensable illness. Eastgate, anchors its claim against the compensability of the illness of Torillos on the finding of Dr. Cruz in his Medical Report[37] dated April 19, 2012, that Torillos' condition is degenerative and pre-existing. This argument is untenable. Such medical report did not make any categorical declaration and definite conclusion that Torillos' medical condition is not work-related. Dr. Cruz merely opined that the illness, lumbar spondylosis, is "most likely pre-existing". Dr. Cruz even gave an interim disability assessment of Grade 8 - moderate rigidity of two thirds (2/3) loss of motion or lifting power of the trunk under the POEA schedule of disabilities. If at all, this interim assessment bolstered the fact that Torillos suffered a work-related illness. Moreover, the Labor Arbiter based his finding that Torillos' illness is work-related on the PEME conducted on Torillos which found him fit to work. The NLRC affirmed this finding by holding that his illness was aggravated by his work as chief cook whose duties involved heavy manual labor such as carrying the heavy provisions of the ship, preparation and serving of all meals for the entire crew of the vessel, cleaning of dining, kitchen and work areas and of utensils. It further ruled that while Torillos' lumbar spondylosis may be degenerative, there was sufficient basis to rule that his condition was aggravated by the nature of his work. The CA then fully concurred with elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/64930 7/13