4/29/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly ISSUES A. Whether or not the Court of Appeals gravely erred in ruling that respondent’s condition, Nasopharyngeal Cancer, is work-related. B. Whether or not the Court of Appeals gravely erred in considering respondent’s supposed prior employments with petitioners as relevant in determining entitlement to disability benefits. C. Whether or not the Court of Appeals gravely erred in ruling that petitioners failed to present substantial evidence that respondent’s condition is not work-related.[10] According to the petitioners, the CA blindly adopted NLRC’s conclusion that the risk factors could be attributed, even in a lesser degree, to respondent’s working conditions on board the petitioners’ vessel; and that the said risks, especially the alleged dietary cause involving salt-cured fish, were not sufficiently proven by respondent, being the party tasked with the burden of proof. To bolster their case, the petitioners reiterate their submission of evidence showing that the dietary factors could not have been true as varied and fresh provisions were available for the seafarer’s consumption. Moreover, they claim that the CA erred in adopting the concept of work-aggravation because the POEA-SEC does not recognize it; and that respondent’s prior employment history with the petitioners should not have been considered since only the period specified in the contract could be used as basis for compensability claims under the POEA-SEC. In sum, the petitioners are of the position that no connection whatsoever between respondent’s work and the cancer was sufficiently established. Respondent’s Position In his Comment,[11] respondent submits that the CA was correct in awarding him permanent disability benefits considering that this conclusion was substantially supported by facts and evidence on record; that the “likely not work-related” assessment by Dr. Co Peña did not preclude the finding that the cancer was attributable to work because it merely presupposed probability and not certainty; that the dietary risk factor for the development of his cancer was sufficiently established since it was common knowledge that seamen were not at liberty to prepare their own food to suit specific health needs; and that his diet was proven as limited only to or at least involved existing salt-cured supplies. By these submissions, respondent avers that a reasonable connection has been ascertained to prove his entitlement to the claims prayed for. The Court’s Ruling The well-entrenched rule in this jurisdiction is that only questions of law may be entertained by this Court in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45. This rule, however, is not absolute and admits certain exceptions, such as when the petitioner persuasively alleges that there is insufficient or insubstantial evidence on record to support the factual findings of the tribunal or court a quo,[12] as Section 5, Rule 133 of the Rules of Court states in express terms that in cases filed before administrative or quasi-judicial bodies, a fact may be deemed established only if supported by substantial evidence.[13] Here, the petitioners question the conlusion that the disease subject of this petition is a work-related illness or at least aggravated by the working conditions onboard the vessel. They argue that respondent failed to present substantial evidence in support of his claims for compensability. The Court is not persuaded. The Principle of Work-relation The 2000 POEA-SEC contract governs the claims for disability benefits by respondent as he was employed by the petitioners in September of 2006. Pursuant to the said contract, the injury or illness must be work-related and must have existed during the elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/56454 3/8