6/8/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly The petitioners contend that the CA erred in ruling that respondent was entitled to permanent and total disability benefits and for applying the provision of their CBA to award respondent US$105,000.00. They aver that Article 28 of their CBA only pertains to permanent disability suffered as a result of an accident.[23] The petition is partly meritorious. The first issue is whether respondent is entitled to claim disability benefits from the petitioners. There is no quibble that respondent is entitled to disability benefits. The Standard Employment Contract (SEC) for seafarers was created by the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) pursuant to its mandate under Executive Order (E.O.) No. 247[24] dated July 21, 1987 to “secure the best terms and conditions of employment of Filipino contract workers and ensure compliance therewith” and to “promote and protect the well-being of Filipino workers overseas.”[25] In this case, respondent was diagnosed with Central Retinal Vein Occlusion of his left eye. Central retinal vein occlusion is medically defined as the blockage of the central retinal vein by a thrombus. It causes painless vision loss which is usually sudden, but it can also occur gradually over a period of days to weeks.[26] This condition, despite numerous medical procedures undertaken, eventually led to a total loss of sight of respondent’s left eye. Loss of one bodily function falls within the definition of disability which is essentially "loss or impairment of a physical or mental function resulting from injury or sickness."[27] Although Central Retinal Vein Occlusion is not listed as one of the occupational diseases under Section 32-A of the 2000 Amended Terms of POEA-SEC, [28] the resulting disability which is loss of sight of one eye, is specifically mentioned in Section 32 thereof (Schedule of Disability or Impediment for Injuries Suffered and Diseases Including Occupational Diseases or Illness Contracted). More importantly, Section 20 (B), paragraph (4) states that “those illnesses not listed in Section 32 of this Contract are disputably presumed as work-related.”[29] The disputable presumption that a particular injury or illness that results in disability, or in some cases death, is work-related stands in the absence of contrary evidence. In the case at bench, the said presumption was not overturned by the petitioners. Although, the employer is not the insurer of the health of his employees, he takes them as he finds them and assumes the risk of liability.[30] Consequently, the Court concurs with the finding of the courts below that respondent’s disability is compensable. Now, the Court shall determine whether respondent is entitled to be awarded permanent total or permanent partial disability benefits. It should be noted that the company-designated physician assessed the loss of respondent’s left eye as a permanent partial disability while respondent’s own physician elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/28554 5/11