6/7/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly In this regard, we quote with approval the pronouncement of the NLRC as follows: x x x [Respondent] admitted that he was told by the attending physician that 'his heart has a hole somewhere in the left ventricle' x x x. Instead of showing how a hole in the heart may be work[-]related, [respondent] argued on his being 'unable to perform his customary work for more than 120 days' x x x. He stressed in his Appeal that 'probability' is the ultimate test of proof in compensation proceedings, but he did not cite any probable circumstance which could have made [a] hole in the heart [w]ork[-]related. xxxx x x x [T]o be entitled to compensation and benefits, the seafarer must prove by substantial evidence that he contracted the illness during the term of his contract and [that] such infirmity was work-related or at the very least aggravated by the conditions of the work for which he was engaged. Failing on this aspect, the assertion of [respondent] that his illness was workconnected is nothing but an empty imputation of fact without any probative weight.[51] Moreover, the company-designated doctor determined that respondent's condition is not work-related. Section 20(B)(3) of the POEA-SEC provides that the company-designated doctor is tasked to determine the fitness or the degree of disability of a medically repatriated seafarer.[52] In addition, the company-designated doctor was shown to have closely examined and treated respondent from his repatriation up to four months thereafter. Thus, the LA and the NLRC's reliance on the declaration of the company-designated doctor that respondent's condition is not work-related is justified.[53] The Court also notes that even respondent's physician of choice made no pronouncement whether his condition is work-related or not. In his one-page medical report, Dr. Ramos only stated that respondent is not fit for Work. He neither stated that respondent's condition is' not work-related nor did he expound on his conclusion, that respondent is not fit for work. Lastly, the Court holds that the fact that respondent passed the PEME is of no moment in determining whether he acquired his illness during his employment. The PEME is not exploratory in nature. It is not intended to be a thorough examination of a person's medical condition, and is not a conclusive evidence that one is free from any ailment before deployment.[54] Hence, it does not follow that because respondent was declared fit to work prior to his deployment, then he necessarily sustained his illness while aboard the vessel. Given all these, the Court finds that the CA erred in setting aside the NLRC Resolutions, which affirmed the dismissal of the Complaint. The findings and conclusions arrived at by the NLRC were not tainted with grave abuse of discretion as respondent's claim for disability benefits is unsupported by substantial evidence. Indeed, when the evidence adduced negates compensability, the claim must necessarily fail.[55] WHEREFORE, the Petition is GRANTED. The July 20, 2012 Decision and March 27,2013 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 117988 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, the Complaint is DISMISSED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. Carpio, (Chairperson), Brion, Mendoza, and Leonen, JJ., concur. [1] Spelled in some parts of the records as Dohle-Philman. [2] Magsaysay Maritime Corporation v. National Labor Relations Commission, 630 Phil. 352, 369 (2010). [3] CA rollo, pp. 329-341; penned by Associate Justice Danton Q. Bueser and concurred in by Associate Justices Amelita G. Tolentino and Ramon R. Garcia. [4] Id. at 24-35; penned by Commissioner Teresita D. Castilion-bora and concurred in by Presiding Commissioner Raul T. Aquino and Commissioner Napoleon M. Menese. [5] Id. at 42-43. [6] Id. at 36-41; penned by Labor Arbiter Geobel A. Bartolabac. [7] Id. at 381-382. [8] The Employment Contract and respondent's Seaman's Book indicate that the name of the vessel boarded by respondent is MV CMA CGM Providencia. This matter is also clarified in petitioners' Reply. It is however noted that in respondent's Position Paper and Petition for Certiorari he stated that the name of the vessel he boarded was M/S Violetta; id. at 6, 46, 90-91, 139. [9] Id. at 58. [10] Id. at 59. [11] Id. at 46-47. elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/61832 4/6