5/19/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly during the term of the seafarers' employment contract.[31] The "work-related injury," under the 2000 POEA-SEC, is defined as "injury(ies)" resulting in disability or death arising out of and in the course of employment; "workrelated illness" is defined as "any sickness resulting to disability or death as a result of an occupational disease listed under Section 32-A of this contract with the conditions set therein satisfied," to wit: 1. The seafarer's work must involve the risks described here in; 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.[32] In this case, it is undisputed that in the Pre-Employment Medical Examination (PEME) [33] of respondent, under his medical history, he suffered from or had been told that he has a high blood pressure. It is likewise beyond dispute that respondent's mild cerebrovascular accident or stroke is a compensable disease under Section 32-A of the 2000 POEA-SEC, as correctly found by the NLRC.[34] However, the Court adheres to the findings of both the LA and the CA that petitioners, despite knowing that respondent has a high blood pressure, gave the latter a clean bill of health, through the former's accredited clinic, before deployment which leads to a conclusion that whatever illness respondent suffers on board the vessel is work-related. It goes without saying, too, that respondent's work as a seafarer could have attributed to the development of his meningioma.[35] In the words of the LA, "[w]hile on board the vessel, [respondent] is exposed to extremes in temperature brought about by the harshness of sea travel and the elements of the sea and has no choice of the food that they eat because whatever are their provisions, the same shall be served to them."[36] Further, the Court adopts the CA's approval of Commissioner Nieves E. Vivar-de Castro's Dissenting Opinion, which reads: Moreover, the Complainant's hypertension, while preexisting is merely one of the factors that caused his stroke. Conversely, the nature and conditions of the Complainant's employment also took part in the resulting illness which he had suffered. These include, as aptly stated by the Labor Arbiter a quo, the Complainant's exposure to extreme temperatures brought about by the harshness of sea travel and the elements of the sea, the quality and condition of the food he ate, as well as, the strain and stress that he had to suffer brought about by his duties and tasks on board the vessel. Otherwise stated, such nature and conditions of work at the very least increased the https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/66350 6/11