5/28/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly a rational mind to conclude that his work may have contributed to the establishment or, at the very least, aggravation of any pre-existing condition he might have had.”[40] In other words, not only must the seafarer establish that his injury or illness rendered him permanently or partially disabled, it is equally pertinent that he shows a causal connection between such injury or illness and the work for which he had been contracted.[41] In this case, the NLRC gravely abused its discretion in affirming the LA’s findings that Ayungo is entitled to disability benefits on the ground that Beamko and Eagle Maritime assumed the risk of liability of his weakened condition.[42] Beamko and Eagle Maritime’s subsequent hiring of Ayungo, despite knowledge of his Diabetes Mellitus, did not make them guarantors of his health nor did it warrant outright compensation in favor of Ayungo.[43] Indeed, despite the pre-existing nature of his Diabetes Mellitus and the concomitant disputable presumption that it is work-related,[44] Ayungo still had the burden to prove the causal link between his Diabetes Mellitus and his duties as Chief Engineer. As pronounced in Quizora v. Denholm Crew Management (Philippines), Inc.:[45] At any rate, granting that the provisions of the 2000 POEA-SEC apply, the disputable presumption provision in Section 20 (B) does not allow him to just sit down and wait for respondent company to present evidence to overcome the disputable presumption of work-relatedness of the illness. Contrary to his position, he still has to substantiate his claim in order to be entitled to disability compensation. He has to prove that the illness he suffered was work-related and that it must have existed during the term of his employment contract. He cannot simply argue that the burden of proof belongs to respondent company. (Emphasis supplied) Thus, considering that Ayungo failed to establish the work-relatedness of his Diabetes Mellitus through substantial evidence, his claim for disability benefits therefor should not have been granted by the NLRC. As for Ayungo’s Hypertension, suffice it to state that he did not disclose that he had been suffering from the same and/or had been actually taking medications therefor (i.e., Lifezar) during his PEME.[46] As the records would show, the existence of Ayungo’s Hypertension was only revealed after his repatriation, as reflected in the Medical Report[47] dated March 26, 2008 and reinforced by subsequent medical reports[48] issued by MMC. To the Court’s mind, Ayungo’s non-disclosure constitutes fraudulent misrepresentation which, pursuant to Section 20(E) of the 2000 POEA-SEC, [49] disqualifies him from claiming any disability benefits from his employer. In fact, even if the Court were to discount Ayungo’s misrepresentation on the premise that his Hypertension was not pre-existing, his claim for disability benefits therefor should remain dismissible given that he had still failed to satisfy the requirements stated in Section 32-A(20) of the 2000 POEA-SEC, viz.: 20. Essential Hypertension. elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/56522 5/10