8/26/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly generously continued to provide him with notwithstanding the not work-related and non-compensable findings of the CDP.[78] In any event, the Court finds no reason to disturb said findings, considering that Tiquio failed to prove satisfaction of the four (4) conditions for compensability under Section 32-A of the 2010 POEA-SEC, viz.: SECTION 32-A. OCCUPATIONAL DISEASES For an occupational disease and the resulting disability or death to be compensable, all of the following conditions must be satisfied: 1. The seafarer's work must involve the risks described herein: 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. As the Court held in Romana v. Magsaysay Maritime Corporation (Romano)[79] in contrast with the matter of work-relatedness which is indeed presumed, "no legal presumption of compensability is accorded in favor of the seafarer x x x [and thus], x x x he bears the burden of proving that these conditions are met."[80] Citing Licayan v. Seacrest Maritime Management, Inc.,[81] Romana more elaborately stated: [T]he disputable presumption does not signify an automatic grant of compensation and/or benefits claim, and that while the law disputably presumes an illness not found in Section 32-A to be also wdrk-related, the seafarer/claimant nonetheless is burdened to present substantial evidence that his work conditions caused or at least increased the risk of contracting the disease and only a reasonable proof of work-connection, not direct causal relation is required to establish its compensability."[82] (Emphasis and underscoring in the original) To be sure, jurisprudence settles that the legal presumption of work-relatedness of a non-listed illness can be overturned only by contrary substantial evidence as defined above.[83] Nonetheless, it must be stressed that in all instances, the seafarer must prove compliance with the conditions for compensability, whether or not the workrelatedness of his illness is disputed by the employer.[84] As explained in Romana: On the one hand, when an employer attempts to discharge the burden of disputing the presumption of work-relatedness (i.e., by either claiming that the illness is preexisting or, even if preexisting, that the risk of contracting or aggravating the same has nothing do with his work), the burden of evidence now shifts to the seafarer to prove otherwise (i.e., that the illness was not preexisting, or even if preexisting, that his work affected the risk of contracting or aggravating the illness). In so doing, the seafarer effectively discharges his own burden of proving compliance with the first three (3) https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65357 8/20