allowance, reimbursement of medical expenses, damages and attorney’s fees against respondents.13[13]   Respondents disclaimed that petitioner’s illness is compensable, the same not being an occupational disease and was pre-existing.14[14]   By Decision of December 19, 2005,15[15] the Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of petitioner, holding that he got ill during the effectivity of his employment contract, hence, entitled to disability benefits. Had the illness been pre-existing, the Labor Arbiter held that it could have been discovered during the PEME.   By Decision of March 31, 2008,16[16] the NLRC overturned the Labor Arbiter’s Decision holding that the illness of petitioner was pre-existing in nature because it was the same illness for which he was medically repatriated under a previous contract with respondents;17[17] that petitioner was fit to work at the time of his engagement could not be the basis to grant compensation as the results of 13[13] Id. at 51. 14[14] Id. at 76. 15[15] Rollo, pp.94-102. 16[16] Id. at 140-148. 17[17] Id. at 144.