E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly 12/19/21, 1:33 PM for disability benefits. The NLRC reasoned out that respondent failed to present substantial evidence proving that he had suffered any illness while on board or after disembarking from petitioners’ vessel. Respondent’s motion for reconsideration was later denied. Not satisfied with the NLRC decision, respondent appealed before the CA. On September 16, 2009, the CA rendered a decision setting aside the ruling of the NLRC. The appellate court stated that respondent was able to prove by substantial evidence that his work as a seafarer caused his hypertensive cardiovascular disease or, at least, was a relevant factor in contracting his illness. The CA explained that as Lead Operator, respondent performed multi-tasking functions which required excessive physical and mental effort. Moreover, he was also exposed to the perils of the sea and was made to endure unpredictable and extreme climate changes in the daily performance of his job. The CA also took judicial notice of the fact that overseas workers suffer a great degree of emotional strain while on duty on board vessels because of their being separated from their families for the duration of their contract. The CA was of the strong view that the inherent difficulties in respondent’s job definitely caused his illness. The CA added that because of the nature of his work, the illness suffered by respondent contributed to the aggravation of his injury which was pre-existing at the time of his employment. Finally, the CA ruled that respondent is entitled to claim total and permanent disability benefits because of the undisputed doctor’s findings that he “is now unfit to resume work as a seaman in any capacity,” which clearly constitutes a permanent and total disability as defined by law. Not in conformity with the CA decision, petitioners filed this petition for review praying for its reversal raising this lone ISSUE WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN AWARDING FULL DISABILITY BENEFITS TO THE PRIVATE RESPONDENT. In advocacy of their position, petitioners argue that the CA committed a reversible error in awarding respondent disability benefits on the principal ground that there are numerous substantial and competent evidence on record which clearly establish the fact that respondent was guilty of fraudulent misrepresentation, hence, forfeiting his right to any benefits under the POEA contract. For one, respondent intentionally lied when he declared that he was not suffering from a previous medical condition in his pre-employment medical examination (PEME). Specifically, he failed to disclose the fact that he was suffering from diabetes and heart problem, which is a clear case of concealment. Secondly, respondent’s illnesses were not acquired during the term of his contract with petitioners. He had no evidence showing that he acquired the heart problem and hypertension while he was on board the vessel. The fact that respondent passed his PEME does not automatically mean that he suffered his illness on board the vessel or that the same was not pre-existing. Third, the Labor Code provision on permanent disability is not applicable in a claim for disability benefits under the POEA contract. Respondent’s Position Respondent counters that petitioners never raised the issue of fraudulent misrepresentation before the labor tribunals despite being given the opportunity to do so. Hence, they are estopped from raising it for the first time on appeal. At any rate, he claims that he did not commit any fraud or misrepresentation because he underwent a stringent PEME, which included a blood and urine examination, conducted by the company-designated physician. His illness, therefore, was not pre-existing. In any case, the pre-existence of an illness is not a bar for the compensability of a https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/38828 Page 2 of 8