6/5/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly A party in whose favor the legal presumption exists may rely on and invoke such legal presumption to establish a fact in issue.[36] The effect of a presumption upon the burden of proof is to create the need of presenting evidence to overcome the prima facie case created, thereby which, if no contrary proof is offered, will prevail.[37] However, other than their bare and self-serving assertion that petitioner's Hypertensive Cardiovascular Disease was a mere complication of his Diabetes Mellitus II, respondents failed to introduce countervailing evidence that would otherwise overcome the disputable presumption of compensability of the said disease. Verily, it is not required that the employment of petitioner as Chief Cook should be the sole factor in the development of his hypertensive cardiovascular disease so as to entitle him to claim the benefits provided therefor. It suffices that his employment as such had contributed, even in a small degree, to the development of the disease.[38] Thus, it is safe to presume that, at the very least, the nature of petitioner's employment had contributed to the aggravation of his illness, considering that as Chief Cook, he was exposed to constant temperature changes, stress, and physical strain. The fact that petitioner was also diagnosed as having Diabetes Mellitus II was of no moment since the incidence of a listed occupational disease, whether or not associated with a non-listed ailment, is enough basis for compensation, although modern medicine has in fact recognized that diabetes, heart complications, hypertension and even kidney disorders are all inter-related diseases.[39] Besides, Section 20 (B) (4)[40] of the 2000 POEA-SEC explicitly establishes a disputable presumption of compensability in favor of the seafarer and the burden rests upon the employer to overcome the statutory presumption,[41] which respondents failed to discharge. Notably, it was not disputed that from the time of petitioner's repatriation until the filing of the present petition, he was not able to return to his customary work. Accordingly, the Court finds that the CA committed reversible error in granting respondents' certiorari petition since the NLRC did not gravely abuse its discretion in awarding total and permanent disability benefits in favor of petitioner, the same being amply supported by substantial evidence. WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated September 6, 2012 and the Resolution dated February 19, 2013 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 117921 are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Decision dated September 20, 2010 and the Resolution dated December 20, 2010 of the National Labor Relations Commission in NLRC NCR Case No. (M) 09-13249-09 granting petitioner Jose Rudy L. Bautista's claim for total and permanent disability benefits are REINSTATED. SO ORDERED. Sereno, C.J., (Chairperson), Leonardo-De Castro, Bersamin, and Perez, JJ., concur. * Varies throughout the records. Variations are "Antonio Nombredo" and "Antonio S. Nombrano." elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/61320 6/10