1/5/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly also deemed fit for sea duties. If petitioner already had a heart condition prior to boarding, then the same would have been reflected in his PEME, but it was not. Petitioner, therefore, was deemed fit prior to assuming his duties. His work on board caused or at least contributed to the development of his illness; thus, the same is compensable. The National Labor Relations Commission's (NLRC) Ruling On private respondents' appeal, the NLRC affirmed with modification through its Decision dated January 30, 2015,[14] to wit: WHEREFORE, the appeal is PARTLY MERITORIOUS and GRANTED. The Labor Arbiter's award of damages amounting to P100,000.00 is hereby DELETED. All other dispositions in the judgment aquo (sic) is hereby AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED.[15] The NLRC held that petitioner was not guilty of concealment or misrepresentation when he did not disclose that he had previously undergone an angiogram. It said - that an angiogram was neither an illness nor an operation, it was simply a "procedure preparatory to an operation." Since nothing serious came out of it, petitioner did not conceal anything when he did not indicate it in his PEME. In any case, he was found fit for sea duties. More, cardiovascular disease was one of the occupational diseases listed under Section 32-A of the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration - Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC). Private respondents, too, may not insist that petitioner was only entitled to Grade 12 disability benefits in accordance with the company-designated doctors' findings. Petitioner's personal physician found him unfit for sea duties. In any event, it was not the injury which was being compensated, but the incapacity to work resulting in the impairment of one's earning capacity. Petitioner had been out of work for more than two hundred and forty (240) days. By operation of law, he was already deemed totally and permanently disabled to resume work as a seafarer. Considering, however, that private respondents promptly attended to petitioner's medical need upon his repatriation, the award of damages was unnecessary. Private respondents' motion for reconsideration was denied under Resolution dated March 31, 2015.[16] The Court of Appeals' Ruling On private respondents' petition for certiorari, the Court of Appeals, in its Decision dated February 29, 2016,[17] reversed the NLRC Decision. The Court of Appeals held that while petitioner was indeed diagnosed with hypertensive cardiovascular disease and minor coronary artery disease, he failed to prove the https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65965 3/19