x x x in the same application for shipboard employment, complainants husband in a question: any previous illness he checked No. Furthermore, in the employment history, complainants husband did not state the vessel M/V Sea Husky. Record shows that on September 26, 1997, complainants husband, Arbit dela Cruz, executed a Release and Quitclaim x x x. Respondents likewise were able to establish the fact that even prior to the signing-on of Arbit dela Cruz on board MV Ray Ann he was diagnosed by the Marine Medical Services, Metropolitan Hospital x x x stating that: This is to certify that Mr. Arbit dela Cruz was seen at Metropolitan Hospital on July 23, 1996 and was diagnosed to have hypertension, coronary artery disease x x x heart failure x x x. [29] The Court of Appeals rendered a contrary ruling, viz.: x x x Notwithstanding that [Arbits] illness was already pre-existing, such fact will not defeat his right to claim disability benefits under the POEA Standard Employment Contract considering that he underwent a thorough medical examination conducted by a physician designated by private respondents and therefore, private respondents have every opportunity to determine if [Arbit] was medically, psychologically and mentally fit for the job x x x Furthermore, even assuming that the ailment of [Arbit] was contracted prior to his employment, this still would not deprive him of compensation benefits. For what matters is that his work had contributed, even in a small degree, to the development of the disease and in bringing about his eventual death. x x x [30] We rule for petitioner. The appellate court failed to refute the factual finding of the NLRC. Its ruling that Arbit underwent a thorough medical examination conducted by a company-designated physician, was found fit for the job, and therefore must be given disability compensation even if his ailment was contracted prior to his employment, did not categorically rule out that Arbit misrepresented his true medical condition and concealed material information in his employment history. Misrepresentation is a question of fact which may be reversed on appeal by a contrary factual finding. There being none, we sustain the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC whose findings are supported by substantial evidence. The assailed Decision cited the case of Wallem Maritime Services, Inc. v. NLRC.[31] As correctly pointed out by petitioner, the doctrine in Wallem is not applicable to the case at bar. In that case, the issue is whether respondents husbands death, caused by a pre-existing disease, is compensable despite the failure of the deceased to comply with the post-medical examination requirement under the Contract. It did not involve any issue of misrepresentation.