5/19/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly risk of contracting the illness, or aggravated his pre-existing hypertension that led to his stroke, and for which he should be compensated therefor. As earlier mentioned, that the work contributed even to a small degree to the development or aggravation of the disease is enough to warrant compensation. x x x It may not be amiss to note at this juncture that due to the lack of proper medical treatment after his repatriation, the Complainant's medical condition worsened which ultimately led to a finding of Meningioma, a kind of brain tumor which is often described as slow-growing x x x. To my mind, despite having been discovered or diagnosed six (6) months after the Complainant's repatriation, the said illness nevertheless manifested at the first instance when he suffered a stroke while on board the vessel. x x x[37] Thus, the Court adheres to Commissioner Nieves E. Vivar-De Castro in saying that petitioners having engaged the respondent as hypersensitive as he is, they should now accept the liability for his ensuing ailment in the course of his employment.[38] It is not required that an employee must be in perfect health when he contracted the illness to be able to recover disability compensation.[39] It is equally true, that while the employer is not the insurer of the health of the employees, once he takes the employees as he finds them, then he already assumes the risk of liability.[40] In sum, despite respondent's pre-existing high blood pressure or hypertension, he was still initially declared fit for sea duty during his PEME. Therefore, his meningioma is presumed to have been brought about by the nature of his employment and occurred during and in the course of his employment. This goes without saying that respondent is entitled to total and permanent disability benefits because, as aptly found by both the labor arbiter and the CA, he would not be able to resume to his position as a fourth engineer or, at least, be hired by other maritime employers.[41] Section 20(B)(6) of the POEA-SEC mandates the employer to pay the seafarer disability benefits for his permanent total or partial disability caused by the work-related illness or injury once there is already a finding of permanent either total or partial disability within the 120-day period or the 240-day period.[42] A permanent disability essentially means a permanent reduction of the earning power of a seafarer to perform future sea or on board duties and permanent disability benefits serve as a means to alleviate the seafarer's financial condition on account of the level of injury or illness he incurred or contracted.[43] A reading of the three kinds of liabilities under Section 20(B) of the POEA-SEC means that the POEA-SEC intended to make the employer liable for (1) the seafarer's sickness allowance equivalent to his basic wage in addition to the medical treatment that they must provide the seafarer with at their cost; and (2) seafarer's permanent total or partial disability as finally determined by the company-designated physician.[44] The Court ratiocinated that while Section 20 of the POE https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/66350 SEC did not state on clear 7/11