6/7/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly total or partial, due to either injury or illness, during the term of the latter's employment. x x x In light of the foregoing pertinent precepts, the question now is whether there is substantial evidence to prove the existence of the above-stated elements. Our assiduous assessment of the records leads Us to answer in the affirmative. Indeed, like the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC, We too are convinced that private respondent was able to prove by substantial evidence that his risk of contracting such illness was aggravated by his working conditions on board petitioners' 'MV Norviken', specially taking into consideration the inhumane treatment he suffered from Second Officer Dayo which ultimately led private respondent to snap. And as aptly pointed out by the Labor Arbiter, the degree of proof required in this case is merely substantial evidence and a reasonable work-connection; not a direct causal relation. 'It is enough that the hypothesis on which the workmen's claim is based is probable. Medical opinion to the contrary can be disregarded especially where there is some [basis] in the facts for inferring a work connection. Probability, not certainty, is the touchstone. x x x.' Furthermore, under the POEA Standard Contract, private respondent is disputably presumed work-related [sic] and, therefore, it is incumbent for petitioners to contradict it by their own substantial evidence. As the records would reveal, however, petitioner miserably failed to discharge this burden since, as found by the Labor Arbiter, and affirmed by the NLRC, the pieces of evidence, which petitioners presented were either of dubious character or bereft of probative value. On petitioners' stance that private respondent is, under Section 20(E) of the POEA Standard Contract, barred from claiming disability benefit for his failure to disclose his previous bout with insomnia and paranoia, suffice it to state that We fully concur with the labor tribunal that this omission cannot just be taken against private respondent as to deprive him of disability benefits considering that Section 20(E) requires that such information should have been knowingly concealed. Considering that private respondent was only at a tender age of fifteen (15) when it happened, it is indeed fair to conclude that he really had no intention of deliberately withholding such information and that it merely slipped his mind when answering his PEME. Ail the foregoing considered, We hold that there is no basis for Us to annul and set aside the findings of the Labor Arbiter, as affirmed by the NLRC, with respect to private respondent's right to disability benefit, as no amount of grave abuse of discretion attended the same. xxxx With respect to the award of sickness allowance, Paragraph 3, Section 20(B) of the 2000 POEA Standard Employment Contract is categorical that '[u]pon sign-off from the vessel for medical treatment, the seafarer is entitled to sickness allowance equivalent to his basic wage until he is declared fit to work or the degree of permanent disability has been assessed by the company-designated physician but in no case shall this period exceed one hundred twenty (120) days.' Based on this provision and given the finding that private respondent's illness was elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/63469 14/31