petitioner’s illness during his previous contract with respondents is deemed preexisting during his subsequent contract.   That petitioner was subsequently rehired by respondents despite knowledge of his seizure attacks does not make the latter a guarantor of his health. A seafarer only needs to pass the mandatory PEME in order to be deployed on duty at sea. Notably, petitioner was consistently declared “fit to work” at sea after every PEME. However, while PEME may reveal enough for respondents to decide whether a seafarer is fit for overseas employment, it may not be relied upon as reflective of petitioner’s true state of health. The PEME could not have revealed petitioner’s illness as the examinations were not exploratory.27[27]   But even granting arguendo that petitioner’s illness was not pre-existing, he still had to show that his illness not only occurred during the term of his contract but also that it resulted from a work-related injury or illness, or at the very least aggravated by the conditions of the work for which he was contracted for.28[28] Petitioner failed to discharge this burden, however.29[29] 26 [26] Millares v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 110524, July 29, 2002, 385 SCRA 306. 27 [27] 28 [28] 29 [29] Supra note 25 at 60. Masangcay v. Trans-Global Maritime Agency, Inc., G.R. No. 172800, October 17, 2008, 569 SCRA 592, 593 See Estate of Poseido Ortega vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 175005, April 30, 2008, 553 SCRA 649.