5/28/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly 12. Work-Related Illness – any sickness resulting to disability or death as a result of an occupational disease listed under Section 32-A of this contract with the conditions set therein satisfied. (Emphases supplied) Case law explains that “[t]he words ‘arising out of’ refer to the origin or cause of the accident, and are descriptive of its character, while the words ‘in the course of’ refer to the time, place, and circumstances under which the accident takes place. As a matter of general proposition, an injury or accident is said to arise ‘in the course of employment’ when it takes place within the period of the employment, at a place where the employee reasonably may be, and while he is fulfilling his duties or is engaged in doing something incidental thereto.”[49] In this case, respondents submit that petitioner was unable to prove that Rodolfo’s illness, i.e., Brainstem (pontine) Cavernous Malformation, which had supposedly supervened during the term of his employment on board the vessel MS Prinsendam, was not related to his work.[50] To bolster the argument, respondents point to the fact that Brainstem (pontine) Cavernous Malformation is not listed as an occupational disease under Section 32-A[51] of the 2000 POEA-SEC. The contention is untenable. While it is true that Brainstem (pontine) Cavernous Malformation is not listed as an occupational disease under Section 32-A of the 2000 POEA-SEC, Section 20 (B) (4) of the same explicitly provides that “[t[he liabilities of the employer when the seafarer suffers work-related injury or illness during the term of his contract are as follows: (t)hose illnesses not listed in Section 32 of this Contract are disputably presumed as work related.” In other words, the 2000 POEA-SEC “has created a disputable presumption in favor of compensability[,] saying that those illnesses not listed in Section 32 are disputably presumed as work-related. This means that even if the illness is not listed under Section 32-A of the POEA-SEC as an occupational disease or illness, it will still be presumed as work-related, and it becomes incumbent on the employer to overcome the presumption.”[52] This presumption should be overturned only when the employer’s refutation is found to be supported by substantial evidence, [53] which, as traditionally defined is “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as sufficient to support a conclusion.”[54] As held in the case of Magsaysay Maritime Services v. Laurel:[55] Anent the issue as to who has the burden to prove entitlement to disability benefits, the petitioners argue that the burden is placed upon Laurel to prove his claim that his illness was work-related and compensable. Their posture does not persuade the Court. True, hyperthyroidism is not listed as an occupational disease under Section 32-A of the 2000 POEA-SEC. Nonetheless, Section 20 (B), paragraph (4) of the said POEA-SEC states that “those illnesses not listed in Section 32 of this Contract are disputably presumed as workelibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/58338 5/18