totally in-depth and thorough examination of an applicant’s medical condition. The PEME, usually cursorily made, determines whether one is “fit to work” at sea or “fit for sea service”; it does not reveal the real state of health of an applicant.44[44] In the present case, the worthlessness of the respondents’ PEME for AIDS determination purposes is hardly disputable.   Second, from the causes of AIDS we pointed out above, it appears – in the absence of any record of blood transfusion while on board – that Eduardo acquired his AIDS through sexual relations with an infected person and not because of his brief two-month stay on board or of his working conditions during that period. As discussed above, HIV/AIDS, while communicable, can be transmitted only under specific conditions. By a process of elimination, Eduardo could have acquired his AIDS only through sexual transmission – a claim made by the respondents, albeit through an unsigned report by a foreign nurse who was not available for examination during the arbitration and whose statement cannot therefore be appreciated as evidence.45[45]   Third, HIV/AIDS is a disease of the immune system that does not progress to the point of attracting opportunistic infections until the immune system has substantially been weakened by the progress of the disease. It does not reach this advanced stage in two months’ time as established medical literature shows. Eduardo did not succumb to the disease and the opportunistic infections it carried until after two years from the respondents’ discovery of the disease, and four years after he was tested positive by PROBE.   Based on these considerations, we cannot escape the conclusion that the petition is without merit and that the CA was correct when it reversed and set aside the NLRC award of death benefits to the petitioners as heirs of Eduardo. This is a conclusion that cannot be helped nor swayed by the intent of our laws and jurisprudence to be read liberally in their application to our overseas Filipino workers. Liberal construction is not a license to disregard the evidence on record 44[44] See NYK-FIL Ship Management, Inc. v. NLRC, G.R. No. 161104, September 27, 2006, 503 SCRA 595, 609. 45[45] CA rollo, pp. 100-104.