5/28/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly an award of only US$105,000.00. Examining the provisions of the CBA further, it pointed out that the disability compensation, per the CBA, is only available to a seafarer who "suffers permanent disability as a result of work related illness or from an injury as a result of an accident." Based on this CBA provisions and the 2000 POEA-SEC which defines "work-related illness" as only those listed under its Section 32-A, the CA concluded that the CBA does not cover and does not consider as Ravena's adenocarcinoma or cancer of the ampullary area to be a compensable illness. Thus, the CA reduced the amount of the disability benefits that the LA awarded to US$60,000.00, following the schedule under the 2000 POEA-SEC. The Petition The petitioners maintain that Ravena failed to discharge the burden of proving, by substantial evidence, the causal connection between the nature of his work and his illness or that the risk of contracting adenocarcinoma or cancer of the ampullary area was increased by his working conditions. They point out that, first, Ravena did not present any evidence that the food served on board M/V Tate J were high in fat and low in fiber, or assuming arguendo that the food served had indeed been of the high-fat-low-fiber kind, that they caused or aggravated his ampullary cancer. Second, the cancer of the ampullary area that afflicts Ravena is not one of the illnesses Section 32 of the POEA-SEC considers as occupational disease. Third, while actual or direct proof of causal connection between the working conditions and the seafarer's illness is not required, the award of disability benefits must still have sufficient basis. This sufficient basis is still required despite the disputable presumption that the POEA-SEC attaches to those illnesses not listed in Section 32. Working conditions cannot simply be presumed to have increased the risk of contracting the disease, absent any proof that links the seafarer's working conditions and his illness. Fourth, Ravena did not report to them or to their designated physician within the three-day POEA-SEC mandated period for the post-employment medical examination. And fifth, Court rulings had already settled that the opinion of the company-designated physician will prevail in the determination of the seafarer's disability in disability benefits claims. Ravena, notably, did not even present a contrary opinion from his chosen physician. The Case for Ravena Ravena counters, in his comment,[22] that he has successfully proven the existence of the causal connection between his illness and the working conditions on board M/V Tate J, or that his working conditions had, at the least, aggravated his illness. He argues that the conditions on board the vessel - exposure to chemicals, the demands of ship duties, and dietary provisions - directly caused or aggravated his illness. This conclusion, he points out, is in line with the various Court's rulings[23] that considered cancer as compensable illness. In fact, citing Employees Compensation Commission v. Court of Appeals and Heirs of Abraham Cate,[24] he argues that a disability benefits claimant is not even obliged to prove causal connection between the illness and his working conditions. He additionally argues that under Section 20-B of the POEA-SEC, illnesses not otherwise listed as an occupational disease under Section 32-A are nevertheless disputably presumed to be work-related. The burden, therefore, lies on the petitioners to rebut this disputable presumption of work-relatedness. The petitioners, he points out, failed to discharge this burden as Dr. Cruz's certification is not sufficient to overcome this presumption. He adds that they did not even give any explanation or introduced medical evidence to support their position that adenocarcinoma or cancer of the ampullary area is not work-related. At any rate, he points out that the POEA-SEC does not require that the company-physician first declare that the seafarer's illness is work-related for illness to be compensable. In fact, the courts are not even bound by the declaration from the company-designated physician, so as to automatically preclude the seafarer from claiming disability benefits. elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/57785 3/12