8/26/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly nature of their ailment, and other factors that may lead to the conclusion that they contracted a work-related injury.[83] Thus: x x x this Court observes that all the tribunals below relied on the mere fact of the 22-year employment of De Leon as the causative factor that triggered his radiculopathy. They did not even specify his duties as a seafarer throughout his employment. At most, respondent merely alleged that in his last stint as a Third Mate, he was a watchstander. His job entailed that he was responsible to the captain for keeping the ship, its crew, and its cargo safe for eight hours a day. Still, he did not particularize the laborious conditions of his work that would cause his injury. The CA mentioned that De Leon was consistently engaged in stressful physical labor throughout his 22 years of employment. But it did not define these purported stressful physical activities, nor did it point to any piece of evidence detailing his work. xxxx In effect, De Leon failed to show before the labor tribunals his functions as a seafarer, as well as the nature of his ailment. Absent these premises, none of the courts can rightfully deduce any reasonable causal connection between his ailment and the work for which he was contracted.[84] (emphases supplied) Consequently, although considered as an occupational disease, respondent's heart ailment did not satisfy the conditions under Section 32-A (11) 2010 POEA-SEC to be considered occupational.[85] His aortic valve stenosis not being work-related, the same is held/deemed not compensable. As we reiterated in the recent case of Esposo v. Epsilo Maritime Services, Inc.:[86] Hence, although cardiovascular diseases are listed as occupational diseases, still, to be compensable under the POEA-SEC, all of the four (4) general conditions for occupational diseases under Section 32, plus any one (1) of the conditions listed under Section 32-A for cardiovascular diseases, must nonetheless be proven to have obtained and/or be obtaining. Moreover, the same must be work-related and must have existed during the term of the seafarer's employment. In the present case, Esposo failed to substantially prove his claim that his illness was work-related or that it was existing during the time of his employment with Epsilon. He failed to show that his illness was known to have been present during his employment or that the nature of his work brought an acute exacerbation thereof as required under Section 32-A (11) (a).[87] (boldface in the original) https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65335 18/24