5/28/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly related.” The said provision explicitly establishes a presumption of compensability although disputable by substantial evidence. The presumption operates in favor of Laurel as the burden rests upon the employer to overcome the statutory presumption. Hence, unless contrary evidence is presented by the seafarer’s employer/s, this disputable presumption stands. In the case at bench, other than the alleged declaration of the attending physician that Laurel’s illness was not work-related, the petitioners failed to discharge their burden. In fact, they even conceded that hyperthyroidism may be caused by environmental factor.[56] Similarly in Jebsens Maritime, Inc. v. Babol:[57] The Principle of Work-relation The 2000 POEA-SEC contract governs the claims for disability benefits by respondent as he was employed by the petitioners in September of 2006. Pursuant to the said contract, the injury or illness must be work related and must have existed during the term of the seafarer’s employment in order for compensability to arise. Work-relation must, therefore, be established. As a general rule, the principle of work-relation requires that the disease in question must be one of those listed as an occupational disease under Sec. 32-A of the POEA-SEC. Nevertheless, should it be not classified as occupational in nature, Section 20 (B) paragraph 4 of the POEA-SEC provides that such diseases are disputed are disputably presumed as work-related. In this case, it is undisputed that NPC afflicted respondent while on board the petitioners’ vessel. As a non-occupational disease, it has the disputable presumption of being work-related. This presumption obviously works in the seafarer’s favor. Hence, unless contrary evidence is presented by the employers, the work-relatedness of the disease must be sustained. And in Fil-Star Maritime Corporation v. Rosete:[58] 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, 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.” elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/58338 6/18