5/19/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly enough for the employer to determine his fitness for the nature of the work for which he is to be employed.[81] (Citations omitted) In Ayungo v. Beamko Shipmanagement Corporation,[82] this Court likewise ruled that a seafarer is disqualified from claiming disability benefits for non-disclosure of previous medical illness. As for Ayungo's Hypertension, suffice it to state that he did not disclose that he had been suffering from the same and/or had been actually taking medications therefor (i.e., Lifezar) during his PEME. As the records would show, the existence of Ayungo's Hypertension was only revealed after his repatriation, as reflected in the Medical Report dated March 26, 2008 and reinforced by subsequent medical reports issued by MMC. To the Court's mind, Ayungo's non-disclosure constitutes fraudulent misrepresentation which, pursuant to Section 20(E) of the 2000 POEA- SEC, disqualifies him from claiming any disability benefits from his employer.[83] (Citations omitted) Similarly, in Status Maritime Corp. v. Spouses Delalamon,[84] this Court held that the pre-employment medical examination does not preclude the employers from rejecting disability claims if it was shown that the seafarer willfully concealed his or her medical history. The fact that Margarita passed his PEME cannot excuse his willful concealment nor can it preclude the petitioners from rejecting his disability claims. PEME is not exploratory and does not allow the employer to discover any and all pre-existing medical condition with which the seafarer is suffering and for which he may be presently taking medication. The PEME is nothing more than a summary examination of the seafarer's physiological condition; it merely determines whether one is "fit to work" at sea or "fit for sea service" and it does not state the real state of health of an applicant. The "fit to work" declaration in the PEME cannot be a conclusive proof to show that he was free from any ailment prior to his deployment. Thus, for knowingly concealing his diabetes during the PEME, Margarito committed fraudulent misrepresentation which under the POEA- SEC unconditionally barred his right to receive any disability compensation or illness benefit.[85] Nevertheless, the Court in Deocariza v. Fleet Management Services[86] resolved that Section 20 (E) places the burden on the employer to prove the concealment of a preexisting illness or medical condition to disqualify seafarers from compensation. The Court, however, finds the foregoing conclusion anchored on pure speculation. At the outset, it bears to point out that Section 20 (E) of the 2010 POEA-SEC speaks of an instance where an employer is absolved from liability when a seafarer suffers a work-related injury or illness on account of the latter's willful concealment or misrepresentation of a preexisting condition or illness. Thus, the burden is on the employer to prove such https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/66521 12/19