6/8/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly last employment contract with respondent company ended in July 2000. So, it is difficult to conclude that his varicose veins can only be attributable to his previous employment with the company. Besides, petitioner’s employment was not continuous but on a per-contract basis which usually lasted for nine (9) months depending on the requirement of the foreign principal. He was considered “signed-off” upon the expiration of each contract. It was possible that he acquired varicose veins while he was “signed-off” from the vessels of respondent company. Except for his bare allegations, there is nothing to support his theory that his intermittent contracts of employment with respondent company had reasonable connection with his acquisition of varicose veins. He neither presented proof on this point nor offered a medical expert opinion. Respondent company further argues that the disputable presumption under Section 20(B) (4) of the 2000 POEA SEC is completely irrelevant to this case. First, the 2000 POEA-SEC initially took effect sometime in July 2002. Petitioner’s last employment contract with respondent company was from November 1999 to July 2000. Thus, at the time the parties entered into an overseas employment contract in November 1999, the provisions of the POEA-SEC, which were deemed incorporated into the contract, were those from the 1996 POEA-SEC. Hence, it is the 1996 POEA-SEC, not the 2000 POEASEC, which should govern his claim for disability benefits. The disputable presumption relied upon by petitioner does not appear in the 1996 POEA-SEC but can only be found in the 2000 POEA-SEC. Second, even assuming that the 2000 POEA-SEC governed petitioner’s previous employment with respondent company, he was still not entirely relieved of the burden to submit evidence to prove his claim because Section 20(B) of the 2000 POEA-SEC specifically pertains to work-related injury or illness. Therefore, it is still incumbent upon him to present proof that his varicose veins were reasonably connected to his work. Respondent company opines that varicose veins is a common disease for those who are at least 30 years old and it can be acquired genetically or through lack of exercise. Lastly, respondent company asserts that there is no showing that petitioner’s varicose veins caused him permanent disability. While affliction with varicose veins may bring pain and discomfort to the body of a person, the illness is not permanent as it can actually be treated, either through self-help or medical care. The Court’s Ruling The Court finds no merit in the petition. Before tackling the issue of what rule governs the case, there is a need to compare the provisions of Section 20-B of the 1996 POEA-SEC and Section 20-B of the 2000 POEASEC. Section 20 (B) of the 1996 POEA-SEC reads as follows: elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/26253 4/11