8/26/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly 2) The disease was contracted as a result of the seafarer's exposure to the described risks; 3) The disease was contracted within a period of exposure and under such other factors necessary to contract it; and 4) There was no notorious negligence on the part of the seafarer. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied) Applying the foregoing, the Court finds that the CA, NLRC, and LA were correct in finding that Malicdem is not entitled to disability benefits for his hypertension and glaucoma. On his hypertension, Malicdem failed to substantially prove that the same was contracted due to, or aggravated by, the conditions of his work on board the vessel. As found by the LA, NLRC and CA, the bare allegations of Malicdem that the sodium-rich food, physical and psychological stress and other emergencies on board the ship caused the exacerbation of his hypertension, is insufficient.[75] The Court likewise notes that the opinion of Dr. Casison, Malicdem's private doctor, did not even explain the cause of Malicdem's hypertension or attempt to connect the same to his work conditions.[76] Moreover, there is no showing that he suffered hypertension while on board the vessel.[77] These are factual findings of the labor tribunals and the CA which appear to be supported by substantial evidence; hence must be accorded not only respect but finality.[78] As for Malicdem's glaucoma, he claims that his duties and responsibilities as Chief Engineer,[79] his exposure to the sea breeze and other elements of nature while the vessel is in open seas, the stress from his strenuous job and his emotional strain from homesickness aggravated his glaucoma.[80] These propositions were rejected by the labor tribunals and the CA. As factually found by the NLRC, Malicdem presented no competent medical history, records or physician's report to objectively substantiate the claim that there is a reasonable connection between his work and his glaucoma.[81] What he has are bare allegations which fall far short of the substantial evidence required of him by law.[82] The Court finds no cause to overturn such findings. Factual findings of labor officials, who are deemed to have acquired expertise in matters within their respective jurisdiction, are accorded not only respect but even finality, and bind the Court when supported by substantial evidence.[83] Likewise weighing against Malicdem's case is the medical report of the companydesignated physician, Dr. Salvador, issued soon after Malicdem's first repatriation in 2011, that his glaucoma was not work related.[84] Dr. Salvador subsequently issued another report,[85] in reply to a query arising from Malicdem's latest repatriation (which is the subject of the present case), listing down the major risk factors for glaucoma. These factors do not include exposure to sea breeze and the other matters alleged by Malicdem to have aggravated his condition. In the latter report, Dr. https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65276 10/17