7/7/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly month employment with them. They claim that Item 8 in Mesina's employment contract excludes his ailment of Ischaemic Heart Disease since it was a congenital one aggravated by an unhealthy lifestyle and therefore not related to work. It was also not possible for them to comply with the requirements mandated by law for termination on the ground of disease since they did not terminate Mesina's employment when he was repatriated on February 21, 2006. What transpired was that Mesina's temporary repatriation was for the sole purpose of his medical treatment in the Philippines, even if his illness was not work-related.[39] We find the foregoing arguments unmeritorious. Firstly, this Court finds that the very nature of petitioner's work as an Expediter had contributed to the aggravation of his illness - if indeed it was pre-existing at the time of his employment. In De Leon v. Maunlad Trans, Inc. ,[40] We have held that "it is not required that the employment be the sole factor in the growth, development or acceleration of the illness to entitle the claimant to the benefits provided therefor. It is enough that the employment had contributed, even to a small degree, to the development of the disease." Moreover, in Wallem Maritime Services, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission,[41] We pointed out that: Neither is it necessary, in order to recover compensation, that the employee must have been in perfect condition or health at the time he contracted the disease. Every workingman brings with him to his employment certain infirmities, and while the employer is not the insurer of the health of the employees, he takes them as he finds them and assumes the risk of liability, x x x[42] Secondly, this Court finds that petitioners failed to substantiate their claim that Mesina voluntarily returned to the Philippines for medical treatment. If the repatriation was indeed voluntary on his part, he would not have pursued a case of illegal termination against petitioners which would cost him time and money. As it is, Mesina's immediate filing of a case of illegal dismissal negates petitioners' claim that he voluntarily agreed to his repatriation to seek medical treatment in his home country. Likewise, petitioners failed to establish the fact that they provided Mesina a re-entiy visa to support their argument that they did not dismiss him. In any case, even the existence of a re-entry visa does not necessarily defeat an illegal dismissal complaint. WHEREFORE, the instant Petition is hereby DENIED. The assailed March 11, 2014 Decision and the February 25, 2015 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP. No. 114750 are hereby AFFIRMED. No pronouncement as to costs. SO ORDERED. Leonen, J., (Chairperson), Hernando, Inting Delos Santos, and Rosario, JJ. concur. https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/66825 6/9