6/5/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly evidence to prove that the illness of Gazzingan is congenital. It noted that Gazzingan, who had previously worked abroad for a similar job, had no record of having suffered from, or was treated for, dissecting aneurysm or any other heart ailment. The CA thus concluded that his illness is presumed to have been acquired or aggravated by his strenuous job on board M/V Gloria. In view of the same, it upheld the Labor Arbiter’s awards of permanent disability benefits, sickness allowance and attorney’s fees in favor of respondents. Petitioners sought reconsideration of the CA Decision. They argued that Gazzingan’s smoking habits and history of a congenital condition of lipoma, as both revealed in his PEME, and the unchallenged expert opinion of Dr. Banaga constitute more than enough substantial evidence to conclude that his ailment is not work-related. In a Resolution[22] dated November 25, 2011, the CA denied petitioners’ Motion for Reconsideration. It noted that Gazzingan’s lipoma has no relation or causal connection to the ailment that caused his death. Anent Dr. Banaga’s assessment, the CA ruled that it cannot be relied upon because it was a mere opinion based solely on the PEME results. Dr. Banaga did not perform any prior assessment of Gazzingan’s health condition while he was confined at Manila Doctors Hospital or any exhaustive postemployment medical examination on him. The CA reiterated that the physical stress that Gazzingan suffered while he performed a strenuous job on board the vessel exposed him to injuries caused by dissecting aneurysm. Issues Hence, the present Petition raising the following issues: A. WHETHER THE DECEASED’S ILLNESS IS WORK-RELATED. B. WHETHER THE COMPANY-DESIGNATED PHYSICIAN, TO WHICH GROUP DRS. BANAGA AND CAMMAYO ARE PART OF, HAS THE AUTHORITY TO ESTABLISH IF THE ILLNESS IS NOT WORK[-]RELATED. C. WHETHER RESPONDENTS HAVE THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO PROVE WORK RELATION. D. WHETHER RESPONDENTS COULD RELY ON THE DISPUTABLE PRESUMPTION OF WORK RELATION TO SUPPORT THEIR CASE WITHOUT ANY MEDICAL EVIDENCE TO CONTRADICT THE COMPANY DOCTOR’S OPINION. E. WHETHER PAYMENT OF SICKNESS ALLOWANCE UNTIL SUCH TIME THAT THE NATURE OF THE ILLNESS HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED AS NOT WORK CONNECTED EXTINGUISHED PETITIONERS’ OBLIGATIONS AS REGARDS THE PAYMENT THEREOF. F. WHETHER RESPONDENTS ARE ENTITLED TO 10% ATTORNEY’S FEES IN THE ABSENCE OF BAD FAITH ON THE PART OF THE PETITIONERS. elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/60638 5/14