6/5/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly position, patient suddenly heard a cracking [sound], which was followed by shooting pain on the left thigh, intermittent, localized, aggravated by movement, with no alleviating factors, x x x (Emphases supplied)[39] Notably, MPNST, of which Delfin was diagnosed with more than two years after his repatriation, causes pathologic fractures.[40] And since Delfin is prone to pathologic fractures because of MPNST, it is quite possible that any wrong movement of his body may cause fracture similar to what happened to him as narrated in the clinical report. As to the cause of MPNST, again, it bears stating at this point that petitioners failed to show that the same has any connection with the accident figured in by Delfin while he was on board the vessel. Fourth, the Court notes that Delfm's Position Paper filed with the Labor Arbiter contained vague and ambiguous allegations of two purported compensable illnesses, viz: The record of the case will reveal that complainant is suffering from two (2) compensable sicknesses, one (1) affecting his abdomen and two (2) affecting his back down to his legs.[41] However, in the Rejoinder later filed by him with the same tribunal, he drastically changed such theory by claiming that he instead suffers from MPNST.[42] "It has been held that a party will not be allowed to make a mockery of justice by taking inconsistent positions which, if allowed, would result in brazen deception."[43] Lastly, this Court deems it proper to reiterate its ruling in Quizora v. Denholm Crew Management (Philippines), Inc. [44]on the relevance of the seafarer's passing his PEME vis-a-vis the probability of his having acquired his injury or illness during the period of employment, thus: The fact that respondent passed the company's PEME is of no moment. We have ruled that in the past the PEME is not exploratory in nature. It was not intended to be a totally in-depth and thorough examination of an applicant's medical condition. The PEME merely determines whether one is "fit to work" at sea or "fit for sea service," it does not state the real state of health of an applicant. In short, the "fit to work" declaration in the respondent's PEME cannot be a conclusive proof to show that he was free from any ailment prior to his deployment. Thus we held in NYK-FIL Ship Management, Inc. v. NLRC: While a PEME may reveal enough for the petitioner (vessel) to decide whether a seafarer is fit for overseas employment, it may not be relied upon to inform petitioners of a seafarer's true state of elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/60112 11/16