4/29/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly SECTION 20. COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS xxxx E. A seafarer who knowingly conceals and does not disclose past medical condition, disability and history in the pre-employment medical examination constitutes fraudulent misrepresentation and shall disqualify him from any compensation and benefits. This may also be a valid ground for termination of employment and imposition of the appropriate administrative and legal sanctions. [emphasis ours] We need not belabor this point as a plain reading of the above provision shows that the seafarer’s concealment of a pre-existing medical condition disqualifies him from claiming disability benefits. We note that Dr. Ranjan of the Fujairah Port Clinic stated in his report that Armando was a “known case of HT, on atenolol 50 mg OD [for five years].” The import of this statement cannot be disregarded as it directly points to Armando’s willful concealment; it also shows that Armando did not acquire hypertension during his employment and is therefore not work-related. Contrary to Armando’s contention, the PEME is not sufficiently exhaustive so as to excuse his non-disclosure of his pre-existing hypertension. The PEME is not exploratory[55] and does not allow the employer to discover any and all pre-existing medical condition with which the seafarer is suffering and for which he may be presently taking medication. The PEME is nothing more than a summary examination of the seafarer’s physiological condition and is just enough for the employer to determine his fitness for the nature of the work for which he is to be employed.[56] In Escarcha v. Leonis Navigation Co., Inc.,[57] we brushed aside the seafarer’s claim that he acquired his illness during his employment simply because he passed the PEME. There, we held that “a PEME x x x is generally not exploratory in nature, nor is it a totally in-depth and thorough examination of an applicant’s medical condition. x x x [I]t does not reveal the real state of health of an applicant”[58] In this case, considering that the PEME is not exploratory, its failure to reveal or uncover Armando’s hypertension cannot therefore shield him from the consequences of his willful concealment of this information and preclude the petitioners from denying his claim on the ground of concealment. Finally, if indeed Armando had been suffering from obesity, hyperlipidemia and alcoholism as found by Dr. Ranjan’s final diagnosis, he was suffering from infirmities that are not listed as occupational diseases under Section 32-A of the POEA-SEC and for which disability may be awarded. While we are aware of the provisions of Section 20-B, paragraph 4 which presumes any other illness not included under Section 32-A as work-related, still Armando has to prove that his illnesses are work-related and that they occurred during the term of the employment.[59] He cannot simply argue that the petitioners bear the burden of rebutting the presumption. More than all these, plain logic dictates that mere work in a ship, in Armando’s case as 2nd mate, does not necessarily lead to the imputed medical conditions. Obesity is “excess body weight, defined as a body mass index (BMI) of = 30 kg/m2,”[60] ultimately resulting from a elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/56107 11/17