5/19/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly his findings was presented. Worse, there was no showing that petitioner subjected himself to further laboratory examination as advised, which may imply negligence on his part. In this Petition, petitioner pounds on "the medical fact that hypertensive cardiovascular disease does not develop over a short period of time." This, according to petitioner, is sufficient proof that his cardiovascular illness existed during the term of his contract considering as well that he passed his PEME before he commenced employment with respondents. This argument, however, deserves scant consideration. Foremost, we have held, time and again, that a PEME cannot be relied upon to reflect a seafarer's true state of health since it is not exploratory and may just disclose enough for employers to decide whether a seafarer is fit for overseas employment.[37] Moreover, as correctly found by the CA, there is no proven indication that petitioner was already suffering from an ailment at the time of the termination of his contract with respondents. As we have previously ruled, thus, it would be too presumptive for the Court, in this case, to contemplate even the probability that petitioner contracted his illnesses while on board the vessel.[38] The burden, to reiterate, is upon the seafarer to prove his entitlement to the claimed benefits. In sum, there is nothing on record upon which a conclusion that petitioner contracted his illnesses during his employment on board the vessel and that he contracted his illnesses in relation to his work environment and the risks involved in his daily tasks as a Chief Engineer. On the contrary, what is clear in the records is that petitioner's repatriation was not due to any medical reason, but due to the completion of his contract. His cardiovascular and renal illnesses, which rendered him unfit for sea duty surfaced only after his sign-off from the vessel and during a PEME for another deployment. With the utter dearth of proof advancing petitioner's cause, we find no error on the part of the CA in ruling that petitioner failed to substantiate his claim of compensability. It is apt to be reminded, at this juncture, that "the constitutional policy to provide full protection to labor is not meant to be a sword to oppress employers. Justice is, in every case, for the deserving, and it must be dispensed with in the light of established facts, the applicable law, and existing jurisprudence."[39] Such liberal construction in favor of seafarers must not be taken to sanction the award of compensation and disability benefits in the face of evident failure to substantially establish compensability,[40] lest we set a dangerous precedent of awarding compensation and benefits based merely on unsubstantiated general allegations and common knowledge, tantamount to giving undue full coverage insurance to any and all circumstances that any seafarer may suffer. WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated May 3, 2018 and the Resolution dated August 20, 2018 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 150042 are hereby AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED. Peralta, C.J., (Chairperson), Caguioa, (Working Chairperson), Lazaro-Javier, and Lopez, https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/66454 9/12