6/5/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly in its Decision. A portion of the Petition for Review reads: 12.3 In the case at bar, it bears to stress that Mr. Dayo was certified as “fit to work” based on a pre-employment medical examination. He was deployed on 8 June 2008 and was repatriated on 7 September 2008 due to HYPERTENSION. Upon his arrival in the Philippines, respondents refused to provide Mr. Dayo medical assistance. But due to his critical condition, Mr. Dayo went to Lucena United Doctors Hospital for medical evaluations. He was advi[sed] to undergo [a] series of medical and laboratory tests. Thereafter, Dr. Olitoquit, Mr. Dayo’s attending physician, came up with a conclusion that: “NORMAL LEFT VENT[R]ICULAR DIMENSION WITH ADEQUATE WALL MOTION AND CONTRACTILITY; NORMAL LEFT AND RIGHT ATRIA, RIGHT VENTRICLE, MAIN PULMONARY ARTERY AND AORTIC ROOT DIMENSION’S [sic]. STRUCTURALLY NORMAL TRICUSPID, PULMONIC, MITRAL AND AORTIC VALVE. CONCLUSION: NORMAL 2D ECHOCARDIOGRAM STUDY.”[56] From petitioner’s allegations, it is clear that Eduardo’s physician found him to have a “normal 2D echocardiogram study.”[57] This disproves petitioner’s allegation that Eduardo’s illness and death were work-related. Regarding Eduardo’s “fit to work” certification, this court has previously ruled that the pre-employment medical examination (PEME) is not exploratory and while: [t]he PEME merely determines whether one is “fit to work” at sea or “fit for sea service,” it does not state the real state of health of an applicant. In short, the “fit to work” declaration in the respondent’s PEME cannot be a conclusive proof to show that he was free from any ailment prior to his deployment. Thus we held in NYK-F[il] Ship Management, Inc. v. NLRC:[58] While a PEME may reveal enough for the petitioner (vessel) to decide whether a seafarer is fit for overseas employment, it may not be relied upon to inform petitioners of a seafarer’s true state of health. The PEME could not have divulged respondent’s illness considering that the examinations were not exploratory.[59] While we commiserate with petitioner, this petition must be denied for failure to show any reversible error on the part of the Court of Appeals. It is true that labor contracts are construed in favor of the employee. However, the facts of this case and the applicable laws show that the grant of death benefits cannot be justified. WHEREFORE, this court resolves to deny the Petition. The assailed Court of Appeals Decision and Resolution are hereby AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED. elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/59159 8/12