6/7/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly Ernesto's private physician, Dr. Joel Carlos, were reached based on an extensive or comprehensive examination of Ernesto. In the Medical Certificate[27] he issued, Dr. Carlos diagnosed Ernesto as suffering from "cerebrovascular disease (CVD) and hypertensive atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease"; that he suffered from these illnesses "due to the nature of patient's work and the working conditions/environment on board vessel" and, by reason of which, "[p]atient is no longer advised to work especially as a seaman due to his ... neurologic deficits." However, aside from the above Medical Certificate, Ernesto failed to present competent evidence to prove that he was thoroughly examined by Dr. Carlos. No proof was shown that laboratory or diagnostic tests nor procedures were taken. In fact, Dr. Carlos did not specify the medications he prescribed and the type of medical management he made to treat Ernesto's condition. Dr. Carlos did not sufficiently justify his conclusions that Ernesto's illnesses started at work or are ... work-related and that, by reason of such illnesses, Ernesto was no longer fit to work. At most, the said Medical Certificate is a mere summary and generalization of Ernesto's medical history and condition based on a onetime consultation. Indeed, Dr. Carlos indicated therein that he examined Ernesto on March 8, 2014. However, a cursory reading of the said Medical Certificate shows that the same was issued on the same day. This only proves that Ernesto was under the care of Dr. Carlos for only one day, without any indication whether Ernesto consulted him previously. While it is true that probability and not ultimate degree of certainty is the test of proof in compensation proceedings, it cannot be gainsaid, however, that award of compensation and disability benefits cannot rest on speculations, presumptions and conjectures.[28] 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." Also, it may be true that there is nothing in Ernesto's Pre-Employment Medical Examination (PEME) which showed that he suffered from left cerebral infarct prior to his deployment. However, this Court has ruled that the PEME is not exploratory and does not allow the employer to discover any and all pre-existing medical conditions with which the seafarer is suffering and for which he may be presently taking medication. [29] The PEME is nothing more than a summary examination of the seafater's physiological condition; it merely determines whether one is "fit to work" at sea or "fit for sea service" and it does not state the real state of health of an applicant.[30] The "fit to work" declaration in the PEME cannot be a conclusive proof to show that he was free from any ailment prior to his deployment.[31] In this regard, it is also true that the preexistence of an illness does not irrevocably bar compensability because disability laws still grant the same provided the seafarer's working conditions bear causal connection with his illness.[32] These rules, however, cannot be asserted perfunctorily by the claimant as it is incumbent upon him to prove, by substantial evidence, as to how and why the nature of his work and working conditions contributed to and/or aggravated his illness.[33] However, as earlier discussed, Ernesto failed to discharge this burden of proof. His claims are mere general statements presented as self-serving allegations which were not validated by any written document or any other evidence visibly elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/64139 9/14