6/7/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly occupational and therefore compensable. Thus, for a seafarer to be entitled to the compensation and benefits under Section 20-B, the disability causing illness or injury must be one of those listed under Section 32-A. Of course, the law recognizes that under certain circumstances, certain diseases not otherwise considered as an occupational disease under the POEA-SEC may nevertheless have been caused or aggravated by the seafarer's working conditions. In these situations, the law recognizes the inherent paucity of the list and the difficulty, if not the outright improbability, of accounting for all the known and unknown diseases that may be associated with, caused or aggravated by such working conditions. (Emphasis supplied) Thus, in situations where the seafarer seeks to claim the compensation and benefits that Section 20-B grants to him, the law requires the seafarer to prove that: (1) he suffered an illness; (2) he suffered this illness during the term of his employment contract; (3) he complied with the procedures prescribed under Section 20-B; (4) his illness is one of the enumerated occupational disease or that his illness or injury is otherwise work-related; and (5) he complied with the four conditions enumerated under Section 32-A for an occupational disease or a disputably-presumed work-related disease to be compensable.[15] It is beyond dispute that petitioner suffered an illness that is work-related during the term of his employment contract and such is compensable. The issue now is whether or not petitioner is entitled to permanent and total disability benefits because of his inability to perform his job for more than 120 days, which respondents counter as not being the case since the 240-day rule should govern. This Court, in Marlow Navigation Philippines, Inc. v. Osias,[16] thoroughly discussed the 120-day and 240-day periods, thus: As early as 1972, the Court has defined the term permanent and total disability in the case of Marcelino v. Seven-Up Bottling Co. of the Phil,[17] in this wise: "[permanent total disability means disablement of an employee to earn wages in the same kind of work, or work of similar nature that he was trained for, or accustomed to perform, or any other kind of work which a person of his mentality and attainments could do."[18] The present controversy involves the permanent and total disability claim of a specific type of laborer—a seafarer. The substantial rise in the demand for seafarers in the international labor market led to an increase of labor standards and relations issues, including claims for permanent and total disability benefits. To elucidate on the subject, particularly on the propriety and timeliness of a seafarer's entitlement to permanent and total disability benefits, a review of the relevant laws and recent jurisprudence is in order. Article 192(c) (1) of the Labor Code, which defines permanent and total disability of laborers, provides that: elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/63126 7/15