4/9/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly referring to hypertension as the illness that rendered Andrada unfit to resume work because according to the said doctor a lifetime maintenance medication is required to control this sickness and to prevent other cardiovascular complications. It could not have been umbilical hernia because the same had already been repaired or cholecystolithiasis because the gall stones were already removed during the surgery performed on him. Dr. Vicaldo even noted the scars in his abdomen. The problem is that hypertension was not the illness, for which he was seeking compensation. Also, there was no showing that hypertension was directly connected with the abdominal pains he suffered, the reason why he was medically repatriated. There was not a single instance when he complained about his hypertension while in the vessel. At any rate, no medical records or other sufficient proof was adduced to substantiate the above findings and evaluations of Dr. Vicaldo. True, strict rules on evidence are not applicable in claims for compensation and disability benefits. Probability and not ultimate degree of certainty is the test of proof in compensation proceedings.[22] It cannot be gainsaid, however, that award of compensation and disability benefits cannot rest on speculations, presumptions or conjectures. In the absence of adequate tests and reasonable findings to support the same, Dr.Vicaldo's assessment should not be taken at face value. The oft-repeated rule is that whoever claims entitlement to the benefits provided by law should establish his or her right thereto by substantial evidence.[23] In labor cases, as in other administrative proceedings, substantial evidence is required and it is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion,[24] often described as more than a scintilla. The onus probandi fell on Andrada to establish his claim for disability benefits by the requisite quantum of evidence to serve as basis for the grant of relief. In this task, he failed. The Court sustains the NLRC in ruling that the separate assessments of the companydesignated physician and Dr. Faylona as to the medical condition of Andrada deserved greater evidentiary weight than that of Dr. Vicaldo. The respondents exerted real efforts to extend medical assistance and paid his sickness allowance and even for all the expenses incurred in the course of the treatment of Andrada. The company-designated physician, Dr. Ramos, monitored his health status from the beginning and, thus, the Court cannot simply throw out her certification, as Andrada suggested. Records show that it was Dr. Ramos who referred his health problems to the proper medical specialist so that the appropriate and necessary surgeries could be performed on him and, whose medical results were not essentially disputed; who kept track of his medical case during its progress; and who issued the certification of his fitness to work, dated March 22, 2005, on the basis of the available medical records. The certification issued by Dr. Faylona likewise deserves credence. Let it be underscored that Dr. Faylona was the one who performed the laparoscopic cholecystectomy and umbilical herniorrhapy on Andrada. Dr. Faylona also monitored and attended to Andrada's treatment and recuperation from January 25 to 29, 2005 at the Philippine General Hospital. Certainly, this enabled Dr. Faylona to acquire detailed knowledge of Andrada's medical condition and, thus, was in a better position to reach an accurate evaluation of his health condition and his fitness for work resumption. On the other hand, it is undisputed that the recommendation of Dr. Vicaldo was based on a elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/55246 8/11