6/7/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly presented by Philimare, the Labor Arbiter concluded that the cancer was acquired prior to Dorotea's employment.[30] Agreeing completely with Philimare, the Labor Arbiter likewise ruled that Doroteo violated his contract when he knowingly concealed his past medical condition, disability, and history of cancer.[31] In addition, the Labor Arbiter did not believe Dorotea's claim that the vessel he worked in was unseaworthy and that the engine room had no air exhaust, relying completely on the arguments and evidence presented by Philimare.[32] Finally, the Labor Arbiter rejected Dorotea's claims that he was not given immediate medical attention and cited the medical report of the doctor in Denmark and the medical certificate of Dr. Cruz who was the company-designated physician.[33] As a result, the Labor Arbiter dismissed the claim.[34] The NLRC upheld the Labor Arbiter upon appeal and motion for reconsideration, essentially reiterating the decision of the Labor Arbiter on the same grounds.[35] Dorotea's sister appealed to the CA, which ruled that the NLRC did not commit grave abuse of discretion when it decided that Dorotea's disease was not work-related and therefore non-compensable.[36] The appellate court noted that Dorotea's history as a heavy smoker and drinker was established by the record, and that the medical reports presented alongside the very short time of employment demonstrably proved that the cause of the disease was Dorotea's smoking habit and alcohol intake.[37] The CA however noted that the claims made by Philimare as to bad faith, fraud, and concealment of a disease on the part of Doroteo was inconsistent with the situation, since Doroteo was not a medical practitioner and could not be expected to know what ailed him.[38] However, the CA found grave abuse of discretion on the part of the NLRC when it dismissed Dorotea's claim for damages based on the allegation that he was not given proper medical attention.[39] For the court, it was clear that there were several instances when Doroteo was refused medical attention by the ship master, and when finally allowed to be examined, was not given a thorough examination but merely provided pain-relief medication.[40] In fact, Philimare was unable to provide evidence that it immediately addressed Doroteo's health concerns, or any explanation for the delay.[41] To this the court ascribed bad faith on the part of Philimare because of the continued refusal by the ship master to provide all the necessary assistance to a sick person in its employ, in violation of article 161 of the Labor Code.[42] Hence, for not providing immediate medical attention to Doroteo, the CA partly granted the petition and found Philimare liable for damages in the amount of P300,000.00.[43] It is this Decision and its subsequent affirmation that is being contested by both Dorotea's sister and Philimare before this Court. In the petition of Doroteo's sister, she argues that the CA erred when it ruled that the cancer of Doroteo was not work-related. Specifically, she argues that the fact that Doroteo was declared fit to work by the company-designated physician contradicted the ruling that the disease was pre-existing.[44] Citing this Court's jurisprudence, she elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/62954 3/13