4/10/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly and accordingly nullified the resolutions of the NLRC.[22] The CA ratiocinated, thus: In the case at bar, there is no question that private respondent (David) reported to the company-designated physician for treatment immediately upon arriving in the Philippines. Problems arose, however, when private respondent was diagnosed to be suffering from malignant fibrous histiocytoma and while his condition was given a grade I disability rating, Dr. Chrisopher Co Pe[ñ]a who diagnosed private respondent’s condition opined that it is difficult to determine whether work history would have a bearing to his illness as etiology is multifactorial. Dr. Pe[ñ]a was short of declaring private respondent’s illness as non-work related. It is noted, however, that aside from the certification by the president of petitioner OSG stating that the Marine Medical Services, the record is bereft of the actual medical certificate coming from the Marine Medical Services itself which shows that indeed it issued a Grade I disability rating for private respondent’s illness. xxxx Malignant Fibrous Histiocytoma is not listed as an occupational disease under Section 32-A thereof. Nonetheless, Section 20(B), paragraph (4) provides that “those illnesses not listed in Section 32 of this Contract are disputably presumed as work-related.” The burden is, therefore, placed upon private respondent to present substantial evidence x x x. Private respondent, however, failed to do this. Private respondent did not, by way of a contrary medical finding, assail the diagnosis arrived at by the companydesignated physician x x x. xxxx As to the issue that there was an admission on the part of petitioner OSG that private respondent was already assessed to have a grade I disability, the same only shows that indeed private respondent is suffering from a disability. But going back to the provisions of the POEA Standard Employment Contract, such disability must have a causal relation to the work of private respondent to be compensable.[23] In due time, David filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the CA’s March 11, 2011 Decision.[24] Pending the resolution of his motion, David succumbed and died on April 9, 2011[25] and was substituted in the case by his wife and children.[26] On June 14, 2011, the CA issued a resolution denying the motion for reconsideration. Hence, this petition.[27] Petitioners argue that the appellate court grievously erred in overturning the NLRC and the LA’s decisions considering that it is presumed that David’s illness was work-related elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/55191 4/12