8/26/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly acquired his disease by reason of his employment. It was thus possible that he was already suffering from a heart ailment but due to the limitations of the Pre-Employment Medical Examination (PEME), the examining doctor failed to detect the same. Petitioners stress that although ECG can provide signs of aortic valve stenosis, the same is not definitive according to the company-designated physician. The tests that can properly diagnose said disease is Stress Test and 2D Echo, none of which were conducted during the PEME. As to respondent's pre-hypertensive blood pressure reading, it could only mean that his heart was not in perfect shape; and yet the PEME result posted no hindrance to respondent's employment at sea or was insufficient indication for the examining doctor to require him to undergo further tests. There is certainly no basis for the CA to infer work-connection simply because respondent passed the PEME.[40] Petitioners deplore the CA's factual findings based only on presumptions and absent the quantum of evidence required in labor cases - which is an erroneous application of the law on compensation proceedings. In citing previous cases decided by the Court where it was pronounced that cardiovascular disease, coronary artery disease, and other heart ailments are work-related and compensable, the CA failed to consider that the grant of benefits in those cases were based on satisfaction of the conditions set forth in Section 32-A(11) of the POEA-SEC. [41] It is imperative for respondent to show by substantial evidence the nature of his work and the strain appurtenant thereto that may have resulted in his condition. Notably, despite the CA's recognition that the records of this case were bereft of any showing of such work connection or work aggravation, it still held petitioners liable for the payment of disability benefits to respondent. Indeed, the speculations of the CA should not be allowed to prevail over the express declaration of the company-designated physician that respondent's illness is not work related.[42] On the non-referral to a third doctor, petitioners maintain that it was the counsel of respondent who breached the rule by the precipitate filing of the complaint while they were still conferring on how to comply with the mandatory procedure. Even assuming that said rule can be set aside in the interest of substantial justice, there is still no valid basis for the award of disability benefits because Dr. Vicaldo's pronouncement of workrelation/aggravation is unsubstantiated. Said doctor issued a medical certificate to respondent after a one-time consultation without conducting diagnostic or confirmatory tests. Petitioners cite previous instances when the Court has warned the labor tribunals to take extreme caution in relying on the assessment of Dr. Vicaldo. The CA should have done what the NLRC did when it refused to give credence to the unfounded medical certificate of Dr. Vicaldo.[43] In their Reply to respondent's Comment, petitioners contend that the principle of workaggravation cannot be appreciated in respondent's favor because he failed to prove that his work as fitter and/or the working conditions on board the vessel aggravated his ailment. Petitioners cite respondent's record of hours of rest which was attached to their position paper submitted before the Labor Arbiter. Said document showed that the average time respondent worked was only 10 hours a day between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., with one-hour break at 12 noon; and that he had sufficient 14 hours of rest each day from July to March 2014.[44] https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65335 8/24