5/28/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly The pivotal issue is whether InterOrient can be held accountable for Victor’s disease even if the same was diagnosed 11 months after he disembarked from the vessel upon the termination of his employment contract. The Parties’ Arguments InterOrient insists that the CA erred in ruling that Victor’s sickness was work-related considering the dearth of evidence that would establish that he suffered from the symptoms of the disease while on board the vessel. It argues that if Victor was really suffering from chest and back pains, incessant coughing and low-grade fever, he would have reported the matter in the Ship’s Logbook, inform his superiors, and ask for a medical check-up upon arrival. However, he did not. Instead, upon his repatriation, Victor willingly signed a Receipt and Release declaring that he was not suffering from any ailments at that time. On the other hand, there is strong probability that Victor contracted the disease after his disembarkation. InterOrient also contends that Victor failed to satisfy all the conditions for compensability of an occupational disease as provided under the POEA Contract. It maintains that Victor failed to prove that he contracted TB as a result of his exposure to the described risks; that it was contracted within a period of exposure and under such other factors necessary to contract it; and that there was an absence of notorious negligence on his part. Lastly, InterOrient argues that Victor’s notorious negligence was apparent as he neither declared his alleged illness nor informed the former about it; he did not inform the agency about his initial diagnoses; he did not follow the doctor’s recommendation to take the medication for four months; and it took him a long time after the second diagnosis before he went back to the physician. Had Victor not been negligent, his TB could have been successfully treated. Victor, on the other hand, adopts the CA’s ratiocinations in its assailed Decision and impresses upon this Court that his illness was contracted during the term of his employment and that the risk of contracting the same was increased or aggravated by his working conditions. Our Ruling The Petition is impressed with merit. At the outset, we note that the Petition essentially assails the factual findings of the CA. As a rule, this Court is not a trier of facts and only questions of law may be raised in petitions brought under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. However, the Court is constrained to decide factual issues in exceptional cases, one of which is when there is conflict between the findings and position of the CA, on one hand, and that of the quasi-judicial bodies, on the other,[27] as in this case. For a seaman’s claim for disability to prosper, it is mandatory that within three days from his repatriation, he is examined elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/57627 6/19