8/27/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly For this reason, the 120/240 window does not apply. Assuming petitioner's disability was compensable, he is only entitled to disability benefit corresponding to Grade 10. Issue Did the Court of Appeals commit reversible error when it denied the award of total and permanent disability benefits to petitioner? Ruling The petition is meritorious. Petitioner's illness is work-related and compensable. In More Maritime Agencies, Inc. v. NLRC[22] the Court held that compensability of an illness or injury does not depend on whether the injury or disease was pre-existing at the time of employment but rather on whether the injury or illness is work-related or has aggravated the seafarer's condition, thus: But even assuming that the ailment of Homicillada was contracted prior to his employment with the MV Rhine, this fact would not exculpate petitioners from liability. Compensability of an ailment does not depend on whatever the injury or disease was preexisting at the time of the employment but rather if the disease or injury is work-related or aggravated his condition. It is indeed safe to presume that, at the very least, the arduous nature of Homicillada's employment had contributed to the aggravation of his injury, if indeed it was pre-existing at the time of his employment. Therefore, it is but just that he be duly compensated for it. It is not necessary, in order for an employee to recover compensation, that he must have been in perfect condition or health at the time he received the injury, or that he be from disease. Every workman brings with him to his employment certain infirmities, and while the employer is not the insurer of the health of his employees, he takes them as he finds them, and assumes the risk of having a weakened condition aggravated by some injury which might not hurt or bother a perfectly normal, healthy person. If the injury is the proximate cause of his death or disability for which compensation is sought, the previous physical condition of the employee is unimportant and recovery may be had for injury independent of any pre-existing weakness or disease. (Emphasis supplied) This brings to fore the following question: Who has the burden of proving that petitioner's illness is work-related or has aggravated his condition at work? https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65546 4/13