At any rate, granting that the provisions of the 2000 POEA-SEC apply, the disputable presumption provision in Section 20 (B) does not allow him to just sit down and wait for respondent company to present evidence to overcome the disputable presumption of work-relatedness of the illness. Contrary to his position, he still has to substantiate his claim in order to be entitled to disability compensation. He has to prove that the illness he suffered was work-related and that it must have existed during the term of his employment contract. He cannot simply argue that the burden of proof belongs to respondent company.
For disability to be compensable under Section 20 (B) of the 2000 POEA-SEC, two elements must concur: (1) the injury or illness must be work-related; and (2) the work-related injury or illness must have existed during the term of the seafarer’s employment contract. In other words, to be entitled to compensation and benefits under this provision, it is not sufficient to establish that the seafarer’s illness or injury has rendered him permanently or partially disabled; it must also be shown that there is a causal connection between the seafarer’s illness or injury and the work for which he had been contracted.
The 2000 POEA-SEC defines “work-related injury” as “injury[ies] resulting in disability or death arising out of and in the course of employment” and “work-related illness” as “any sickness resulting to disability or death as a result of an occupational disease listed under Section 32-A of this contract with the conditions set therein satisfied.[5]
Unfortunately for petitioner, he failed to prove that his varicose veins arose out of his employment with respondent company. Except for his bare allegation that it was work-related, he did not narrate in detail the nature of his work as a messman aboard Denklav’s vessels. He likewise failed to particularly describe his working conditions while on sea duty. He also failed to specifically state how he contracted or developed varicose veins while on sea duty and how and why his working conditions aggravated it. Neither did he present any expert medical opinion regarding the cause of his varicose veins. No written document whatsoever was presented that would clearly validate his claim or visibly demonstrate that the working conditions on board the vessels he served increased the risk of acquiring varicose veins.
Moreover, although petitioner was rehired by respondent company several times, his eight-year service as a seaman was not actually without a “sign-off” period. His contract with respondent company was considered automatically terminated after the expiration of each overseas employment contract. Upon the termination of each contract, he was considered “signed-off” and he would have to go back and re-apply by informing respondent company as to his availability. Thereafter, he would have to sign an Availability Advise Form. Meanwhile, he would have to wait for a certain period of time, probably months, before he would be called again for sea service.
Thus, respondent company can argue that petitioner’s eight (8) years of service with it did not automatically mean that he acquired his varicose veins by reason of such employment. His sea service was not an unbroken service. The fact that he never applied for a job with any other employer is of no moment. He enjoyed month-long “sign-off” vacations when his contract expired. It is possible that he acquired his condition during one of his “sign-off” periods.
As discussed in the decision of the CA, varicose veins may be caused by trauma, thrombosis, inflammation or heredity. Although the exact cause of varicose veins is still unknown, a number of factors contribute to it which include heredity, advance aging, prolonged standing, being overweight, hormonal influences during pregnancy, use of birth control pills, post-menopausal hormonal replacement therapy, prolonged sitting with legs crossed, wearing tight undergarments or clothes, history of blood clots, injury to the veins, conditions that cause increased pressure in the abdomen including liver disease, fluid in the abdomen, previous groin injury, heart failure, topical steroids, trauma or injury to the skin, previous venous surgery and exposure to ultra-violet rays.
Lastly, there is also no proof that petitioner’s varicose veins caused him to suffer total and permanent disability. The Pre-Employment Medical Examination[6] (PEME) he underwent cannot serve as enough basis to justify a finding of a total and permanent disability because of its non-exploratory nature.
The fact that respondent passed the company’s PEME is of no moment. We have ruled that in the past the PEME is not exploratory in nature. It was not intended to be a totally in-depth and thorough examination of an applicant’s medical condition. The 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-FIL Ship Management, Inc. v. NLRC:
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.[7]
Besides, it was not expressly stated in his medical diagnosis that his illness was equivalent to a total and permanent disability. Absent any indication, the Court cannot accommodate him.
