1/5/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly existence of the circumstances to make the disease compensable under the POEA-SEC. Petitioner did not show that he was indeed exposed to a certain degree of strain in work that would contribute to the deterioration of his health. His employment contract even showed that he was required to work for only six (6) hours a day. Private respondents' doctors, on the other hand, were consistent in finding that even prior to boarding, petitioner already had cardiovascular disease. These two (2) company-designated physicians from different hospitals swore that petitioner told them he had previously been diagnosed with hypertension and took medicines therefor for a year. Petitioner did not refute this. Notably too, there was no iota of evidence showing that petitioner was complying with his prescribed medications for such illness. Petitioner was even advised during treatment to quit smoking. Petitioner cannot deny his existing illness, albeit he was found fit to work after his PEME. Jurisprudence had consistently held that a PEME is generally not exploratory in nature, nor a thorough examination of an applicant's medical condition. Neither can petitioner argue that the revelation by the company-designated doctors that he had been previously diagnosed with a heart ailment was a fruit of the poisonous tree. This principle applies only to unreasonable searches and seizures. Lastly, petitioner did not even ask to be referred to a third doctor after his chosen physician came out with a finding contrary to those of the company-designated doctors. The POEA-SEC commands such referral and so does jurisprudence. This is specially applicable here considering that merely seven (7) days after consulting with his private doctor, petitioner already sought legal recourse. The Present Petition Petitioner now seeks affirmative relief from the Court and prays that the dispositions of the Court of Appeals be reversed and set aside. Petitioner's Position[18] Petitioner argues that he is not guilty of material concealment. Aside from the company-designated doctors' self-serving allegations that he supposedly mentioned to them that he was previously diagnosed with hypertension and underwent coronary angiogram in 2010, there is nothing on record to support the same. Dr. Sy even mentioned that he purportedly showed him and the other doctor a copy of the result of his angiogram. If this were true, Dr. Sy should have then obtained a copy of the same when his treatment was ongoing. In any event, disclosing to others what he supposedly told the company-designated doctors is a blatant violation of the privileged communication between doctor and patient. Thus, it is inadmissible in evidence. Too, sans any proof that the angiogram showed abnormal findings and continuing illness, it cannot be said that he was guilty of concealment. At any rate, he was deemed fit for duty as a result of his PEME. His illness is total and permanent. Although the company-designated physicians rated https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65965 4/19