4/9/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly In holding that petitioners are liable for total and permanent disability benefits, the CA ruled that: (a) Taok’s illness is compensable under Section 32-A of POEA-SEC; and (b) since Taok was asymptomatic prior to boarding and he manifested signs of his illnesses while under the petitioners’ employ, the causal relationship between his work and his illness is presumed pursuant to paragraph 11(c) of Section 32-A of POEA-SEC and the petitioners failed to prove the contrary: “Under the Labor Code, as amended, the law applicable to the case at bar, in order for the employee to be entitled to sickness benefits, the sickness resulting therefrom must be or must have resulted from either (a) any illness definitely accepted as an occupational disease listed by the Commission, or (b) any illness caused by employment, subject to proof that the risk of contracting the same is increased by working conditions.” In other words, “for a sickness and the resulting disability to be compensable, the said sickness must be an occupational disease listed under Sec. 32 of POEA Memorandum Circular No. 09, S-2000, otherwise, the claimant or employee concerned must prove that the risk of contracting the disease is increased by the working condition.” xxxx [Taok’s] illness was characterized as “cardiomyopathy, ischemic vs. dilated (idiopathic); S/P coronary angiography” or dilated myopathy which falls under the classification “cardiovascular diseases” under Sec. 32-A of Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) Memorandum Circular No. 09, S-2000. Likewise, Sec. 32-A of POEA Memorandum Circular No. 09, S-2000 provides the following conditions in order for the cardiovascular disease to be considered as compensable occupational disease: “a)If the heart disease was known to have been present during employment there must be proof that an acute exacerbation clearly precipitated by the unusual strain by reason of the nature of his work. b) The strain of work that brings about an acute attack must be of sufficient severity and must be followed within twenty[-]four (24) hours by the clinical signs of a cardiac insult to constitute causal relationship. c) If a person who was apparently asymptomatic before subjecting himself to strain of work showed signs and symptoms of cardiac injury during the performance of his work and such symptoms and signs persisted, it is reasonable to claim a causal relationship.” xxxx elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/55036 6/15