exposed to toxic fumes and gas coming from the residue of cargoes and was oftentimes made to work in 24 hour shifts; that, in view of these, the illness of respondent supervened during his employment and, therefore, the presumption arises that he acquired such ailments from his employment; that the Maritime Industry Authority failed to contest or controvert respondents claim within the proper period and, hence, it in effect admitted the compensability of the illness.   Hence, the instant Petition raising the following issues:   I.   WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN DECLARING RESPONDENT ENTITLED TO COMPENSATION BENEFITS EVEN THOUGH THERE WAS NO SHOWING THAT HIS WORKING CONDITIONS HAD INCREASED THE RISK OF HIS CONTRACTING RHEUMATIC HEART DISEASE.   II.   WHETHER THE ILLNESS RHEUMATIC HEART DISEASE IS COMPENSABLE WHEN SUCH DISEASE IS CLEARLY NOT INCLUDED IN THE LIST OF COMPENSABLE DISEASES UNDER PD 626, AS AMENDED. [ 5 ] The petition has merit.   The principal question is whether the respondent is entitled to compensation benefits under existing law due to the condition of Rheumatic Heart Disease.   Respondent avers that the toxic fumes, overcrowded passengers, and animal cargoes in the vessels he inspected, exposed him tostreptococci   infection which, in turn, afflicted him with Rheumatic