8/26/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly Vicaldo's findings, the NLRC pointed out that said physician did not perform any test on respondent. His recommendation was merely based on the medical examinations conducted by the company-designated physician.[34] The NLRC also disagreed with the LA's view that respondent's illness did not arise from an accident as provided in the CBA. Aortic Valve Stenosis is caused by natural causes and not accidental. Since respondent failed to prove that his heart disease was workrelated, such illness is not compensable under the POEA-SEC and the CBA.[35] The NLRC thus decreed: WHEREFORE, the appeal is hereby GRANTED. The Decision of the Labor Arbiter Thomas T. Que, Jr. is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, the complaint is DISMISSED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED.[36] Respondent filed a motion for reconsideration but the NLRC denied the same.[37] He then elevated the case to the CA in a petition for certiorari under Rule 65. Ruling of the CA In its decision, the CA reversed the NLRC, finding respondent's illness to be workrelated. The pertinent portions of the CA's discussion on respondent's entitlement to disability are herein reproduced: The records of this case are bereft of any showing as to how petitioner's nature of work caused or contributed to the aggravation of his illness. Nevertheless, We find that (sic) his illness to be workrelated for two reasons. First, petitioner did not exhibit any sign that he was sick when private respondents employed him. Verily, petitioner's blood pressure during his PEME was at 130/80mmHg., which is considered to be higher than what experts consider optimal for most adults. Private respondents' company-designated physician opined in his certification that "stress test and 2DEcho will detect aortic stenosis in the PEME. The ECG may provide signs but not definitive." Nevertheless, petitioner's results for his chest x-ray and ECG all came out normal. As such, petitioner was declared fit for sea duty. Evidently, there were no signs that petitioner was suffering from Aortic Valve Stenosis at the time private respondents employed him. He only showed signs and symptoms of the said cardiac injury while he was performing his work on board with private respondents' vessel. Pursuant to Section 32-A of the POEA-SEC, We can therefore conclude that there is a causal relationship between petitioner's illness and the work he performed. Second, the Supreme Court took judicial notice in several cases that seafarers are exposed to harsh conditions of the sea, long hours of work and stress brought about by being away from their families. Compounded to this, their bodies are further subjected to wear and tear as https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65335 5/24