6/7/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly NYK-FIL, Madridejos kept silent on the events that happened during the time between his operation and repatriation.[133] If he was really medically repatriated, then he should have been immediately sent back to the Philippines after his operation. However, he only disembarked from the vessel almost three (3) months after such operation. Furthermore, Madridejos failed to present any ship record or other pertinent proof to show that he was involved in an accident.[134] His assertions were not corroborated by any written report or testimonies of witnesses. III Even assuming that Madridejos was medically repatriated, he still cannot claim for disability benefits since his sebaceous cyst was not work-related. The Philippine Overseas Employment Agency Standard Employment Contract, which is deemed integrated into Madridejos' employment contract with NYK-FIL, governs his claim for disability benefits.[135] While these guidelines have been recently amended, [136] Philippine Overseas Employment Agency Memorandum Circular No. 9[137] applies in this case since Madridejos signed his contract with NYK-FIL on March 25, 2010.[138] The requisites for compensable illnesses are provided for under Section 20(B) of Philippine Overseas Employment Agency Memorandum Circular No. 9, Series of 2000: Section 20: COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS .... B. COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS FOR INJURY OR ILLNESS The liabilities of the employer when the seafarer suffers work-related injury or illness during the term of his contract are as follows . . . (Emphasis supplied) Madridejos was diagnosed with sebaceous cyst to the right of his umbilicus during the effectivity of his contract as evinced by the findings[139] of Dr. Byrne. Conformably, Labor Arbiter Demaisip affirmed that Madridejos' illness was acquired during the term of his employment contract.[140] Disputed, however, is whether Madridejos' sebaceous cyst was work-related. In resolving a Rule 45 Petition for Review on Certiorari of a Court of Appeals' Resolution in a Rule 65 Petition for Certiorari, this Court is bound to decide "whether the Court of Appeals was correct in establishing the presence or absence of grave abuse of discretion."[141] In this case, therefore, we determine whether the Court of Appeals properly ruled that the National Labor Relations Commission did not commit grave abuse of discretion in denying Madridejos' claim for disability benefits.[142] elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/63066 11/25