6/7/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly declaration on whether respondent's condition is work-related or not.[36] Respondent's Arguments Respondent contends that the CA properly ruled that he is entitled to permanent and total disability benefits.[37] He insists that since his illness is not listed as an occupational disease, he is "relieved of the burden to show the causation [of] his rights over the disability benefits"[38] as his illness is disputably presumed work-related.[39] He maintains that he sustained his illness while employed as oiler and his condition resulted in the loss of his earning capacity.[40] Issue Is the CA correct in setting aside the NLRC Resolutions denying respondent's claim for permanent and total disability benefits? Our Ruling The Court finds merit in the Petition. This Court does not review factual issues as only questions of law can be raised in a Rule 45 Petition. However, such rule admits of exceptions including a situation where the factual findings of the tribunals or courts below are conflicting. Here, there being contrary findings of fact by the LA and NLRC, on one hand, and the CA, on the other, we deem it necessary to make our own determination and evaluation of the evidence on record.[41] Essentially, petitioners claim that respondent is not entitled to permanent and total disability benefits on the sole basis that he was unable to work for more than 120 days. The Court agrees. The Standard Terms and Conditions Governing the Employment of Filipino Seafarers On-Board Ocean-Going Vessels (POEA-SEC), particularly Section 20(B) thereof, provides that the employer is liable for disability benefits when the seafarer suffers from a work-related injury or illness during the term of his contract. To emphasize;, to be compensable, the injury or illness 1) must be work-related and 2) must have arisen during the term of the employment contract.[42] In Jebsen Maritime, Inc. v. Ravena,[43] the Court held that those diseases not listed as occupational diseases may be compensated if it is shown that they have been caused or aggravated by the seafarer's working conditions. The Court stressed that while the POEA-SEC provides for a disputable presumption of work-relatedness as regards those not listed as occupational diseases, this presumption does not necessarily result in an automatic grant of disability compensation. The claimant still has the burden to present substantial evidence or "such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion"[44] that his work conditions caused or at least increased the risk of contracting the illness.[45] In this case, considering that respondent did not suffer from any occupational disease listed under Section 32-A of the POEA-SEC, then to be entitled to disability benefits, the respondent has the burden to prove that his illness is work-related. Unfortunately, he failed to discharge such burden. Records reveal that respondent was diagnosed of aortic regurgitation, a heart "condition whereby the aortic valve permits blood ejected from the left ventricle to leak back into the left ventricle."[46] Although this condition manifested while respondent was aboard the vessel, such circumstance is not sufficient to entitle him to disability benefits as it is of equal importance to also show that respondent's illness is work-related. In Ayungo v. Beamko Shipmanagement Corporation;[47] the Court held that for a disability to be compensable, the seafarer must prove a reasonable link between his work and his illness in order for a rational mind to determine that such work contributed to, or at least aggravated, his illness. It is not enough that the seafarer's injury or illness rendered him disabled; it is equally necessary that he establishes a causal connection between his injury or illness, and the work for which he is engaged.[48] Here, respondent argues that he was unable to work as a seaman for more than 120 days, and that he contracted his illness while under the employ of petitioners. However, he did not at all describe his work as an oiler, and neither did he specify the connection of his work and his illness. In Panganiban v. Tara Trading Shipmanagement, Inc.,[49] the Court denied the claim for disability benefits of a seafarer who was an oiler like herein respondent. The Court held that petitioner therein failed to elaborate on the nature of his work or to even specify his tasks as oiler which rendered it difficult to determine a link between his position and his illness. The Court is confronted with a similar situation in this case. Respondent simply relied on the presumption that his illness is work-related. He did not adduce substantial evidence that his work conditions caused, or at the least increased the risk of contracting his illness. Like in Panganiban, herein respondent did not elaborate on the nature of his work and its connection to his illness. Certainly, he is not entitled to any disability compensation. In an attempt to establish work-relatedness, respondent stated in his Memorandum before the Court that his illness is compensable due to stress.[50] Aside from being belatedly argued, such claim is unmeritorious as it still failed to prove the required linkage between respondent's work and his illness to entitle him to disability benefits. elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/61832 3/6