8/26/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly 5. WHETHER OR NOT PETITIONER IS ENTITLED TO SICKNESS ALLOWANCE, DAMAGES AND ATTORNEY'S FEE.[48] The Court's Ruling The fundamental issue that the Court must resolve is whether Malicdem is entitled to total and permanent disability benefits. He is not. For disability to be compensable under Section 20(A) of the Amended Standard Terms and Conditions Governing the Overseas Employment of Filipino Seafarers on-Board Ocean-Going Ships issued on October 26, 2010 (2010 POEA-SEC),[49] two (2) elements must concur: (1) the injury or illness must be work-related; and (2) the work-related injury or illness must have existed during the term of the seafarer's employment contract.[50] Relevantly, the 2010 POEA-SEC defines "[w]ork-[r]elated illness" as "any sickness as a result of an occupational disease listed under Section 32-A of [the] Contract with the conditions set therein satisfied."[51] As for those diseases not listed as occupational diseases, jurisprudence mandates that the same may be compensated if it is shown that they are work-related and the conditions for compensability are satisfied.[52] Moreover, Section 20(A)(3)[53] of the POEA-SEC commands that the employee seeking disability benefits submit himself to post-employment medical examination by a company-designated physician within three (3) working days from his repatriation. Thus, in situations where the seafarer seeks to claim the compensation and benefits that Section 20(A) of the POEA-SEC grants to him, the law requires the seafarer to prove that: (1) he suffered an illness; (2) he suffered this illness during the term of his employment contract; (3) he complied with the procedures prescribed under Section 20(A)(3); (4) his illness is one of the enumerated occupational disease or that his illness or injury is otherwise work-related; and (5) he complied with the four conditions enumerated under Section 32(A) for an occupational disease or a disputably-presumed work-related disease to be compensable.[54] The degree of proof required in compensation cases is substantial evidence or that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify the conclusion.[55] Substantial evidence is more than a mere scintilla. The evidence must be real and substantial, and not merely apparent.[56] The rule is that whoever claims entitlement to the benefits provided by law should establish his or her right thereto by substantial evidence.[57] Applying the foregoing guidelines, the Court cannot grant Malicdem's Petition. He failed to discharge his burden to prove, by substantial evidence, satisfaction of items (3), (4) and (5) of the above mandatory requirements for compensability. Malicdem reneged on his duty https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65276 5/17