8/26/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly Despite the dearth of evidence of work-relation or work-aggravation, the CA proceeded to take judicial notice that in several cases seafarers are exposed to harsh conditions of the sea, long hours of work and stress brought about by being away from their families, compounded by the wear and tear caused to their bodies by their work or labor. Additionally, the CA faulted petitioners for not presenting a copy of the results of respondent's coronary angiography, which it said gave rise to the presumption that such evidence if presented would be prejudicial to petitioners. On the assumption that the company-designated physician made a typographical error in the medical report, dated August 28, 2014,[76] stating that the result of the coronary angiography showed an "avanabus oitpin of the right coronary artery from the left coronary cell," the CA interpreted this to mean an anomalous origin of "the right coronary artery from the left coronary sinus." Since such anomaly rarely happens, though it can be surgically treated, the CA again faulted petitioners for not treating the same and for failing to show that respondent was able to work again as a fitter without endangering his life. Incidentally, respondent was able to obtain a copy of the report on coronary angiography which was attached to the petition for certiorari filed before the CA. The cardiologist's conclusion stated: "Insignificant coronary artery disease" with the recommendation to "continue medical therapy" and "aggressive secondary prevention." The CA's reasoning based on generalized statements and presumptions does not suffice to prove entitlement to disability compensation. As we held in the aforecited case of Loadstar International Shipping, Inc. v. Yamson, et al.[77]: While it is true that probability and not ultimate degree of certainty is the test of proof in compensation proceedings, it cannot be gain said, however, that award of compensation and disability benefits cannot rest on speculations, presumptions and conjectures. In addition, the Court agrees with the finding of the NLRC that [c]omplainant [Ernesto] failed to demonstrate that he was subjected to any unusual and extraordinary physical or mental strain or event that may have triggered his stroke.[78] (emphases supplied/citation omitted) In labor cases, as in other administrative proceedings, substantial evidence, or such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as sufficient to support a conclusion, is required. The oft-repeated rule is that whoever claims entitlement to benefits provided by law should establish his right thereto by substantial evidence.[79] Substantial evidence is more than a mere scintilla. The evidence must be real and substantial, and not merely apparent.[80] It has been ruled, time and again, that selfserving and unsubstantiated declarations are insufficient to establish a case before quasi-judicial bodies where the quantum of evidence required to establish a fact is substantial evidence.[81] In Scanmar Maritime Services, Inc., et al. v. De Leon,[82] the Court held that seafarers claiming disability benefits are burdened to prove the positive proposition that there is a reasonable causal connection between their ailment and the work for which they have been contracted. Logically, the labor courts must determine their actual work, the https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65335 17/24