1/5/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly admitted to them that he was diagnosed with and treated for hypertension and coronary artery disease in 2010, petitioner had invariably denied it. Notably, private respondents themselves had not adduced evidence to prove that indeed, petitioner was already suffering from hypertension and coronary artery disease as far back as 2010. Thus, without anything to substantiate petitioner's so-called previous diagnosis, there was nothing he could have concealed from private respondents. Two. Petitioner passed the PEME prior to his boarding. He was declared fit to work by the company-designated doctors. Had petitioner been already suffering from hypertension and coronary artery disease, this would have been reflected in his physical examination. On this score, Philsynergy Maritime, Inc., et al. v. Columbano Pagunsan Gallano, Jr.[25] is apropos: At any rate, it is well to note that had respondent been suffering from a preexisting hypertension at the time of his PEME, the same could have been easily detected by standard/routine tests conducted during the said examination, i.e., blood pressure test, electrocardiogram, chest xray, and/or blood chemistry. However, respondent's PEME showed normal blood pressure with no heart problem, which led the companydesignated physician to declare him fit for sea duty. (Emphasis supplied) Thus, petitioner cannot be said to have had any pre-existing illness prior to boarding. Three. Assuming that petitioner was indeed previously diagnosed with hypertension and coronary artery disease, he still could not be guilty of material concealment. There was no proof that petitioner "deliberately concealed" his illness for a malicious purpose. It was not shown that petitioner had the "intent to deceive" and to "profit from that deception." Consequently, petitioner cannot be considered guilty of concealment as to disqualify him from claiming disability benefits. Second and Third Issues Referral to a third doctor is mandatory Petitioner is only entitled to Grade 12 disability benefits Upon his repatriation, petitioner was diagnosed to be suffering from hypertension and coronary artery disease. The company-designated doctors gave petitioner's illness a Grade 12 rating.[26] But Dr. Pascual, petitioner's chosen doctor, found petitioner to be suffering from Stage 2 Hypertension and Coronary Heart Disease for which the latter is found to be "unfit to work as a seaman." The POEA-SEC, as amended by POEA Memorandum Circular No. 10, series of 2010, the governing law at the time petitioner was employed in 2013, sets the procedure for disability claims, to wit: xxx xxx xxx SECTION 20. COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65965 7/19