To stress deeper, in the very recent case of PAL MARITIME

CORPORATION, NORWEST MANAGEMENT CO. (PTE) LTD.

SINGAPORE/ SONRISA N. DAVID, vs - DARWIN D. DALISAY, (G.R. No.
218115, JANUARY 27, 2021.), the Supreme Court discussed extensively
what constitutes concealment and its effects thereof. To wit-

A SEAFARER WHO IS GUILTY OF FRAUDULENT

CONCEALMENT IN THE PEME IS DISQUALIFIED FROM
CLAIMING "ANY" COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS WHICH
INCLUDE SICKNESS ALLOWANCE.

Xxx

However, Section 20(E) of the 2010 POEA-SEC is likewise

explicit that a seafarer who "knowingly conceals a pre-existing
illness or condition" shall be disqualified from claiming "any
compensation and benefits." The rule seeks to penalize
seafarers who conceal material information in order to pass the
PEME and even makes such misrepresentation a just cause for
termination of employment, thus:

SEC. 20. COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS

xxxx

E. A seafarer who knowingly conceals a pre-existing illness or

condition in the Pre-Employment Medical Examination (PEME)
shall be liable for misrepresentation and shall be disqualified
from any compensation and benefits. This is likewise a just
cause for termination of employment and imposition of
appropriate administrative sanctions. (Emphasis supplied.)

An illness shall be considered as pre-existing if prior to the

processing of the POEA contract, any of the following
conditions are present: (a) [t]he advice of a medical doctor on
treatment was given for such continuing illness or condition; or
(b) the seafarer had been diagnosed and has knowledge of
such an illness or condition but failed to disclose [it] during
[PEME], and such cannot be diagnosed during [such
examination].
On the other hand, the phrase "Knowingly conceals" is not
defined in the 2010 POEA-SEC. Yet, this Court had rendered
several decisions interpreting the phrase.

The following cases are instructive. In Manansala v. Marlow

Navigation Phils., Inc., we ruled that knowing concealment
involves bad faith. The falsity or non-disclosure of the truth
must be for a malicious purpose or coupled with intent to
deceive and to profit from deception. In that case, petitioner
categorically answered "No" when asked during the PEME
whether he suffered from hypertension or diabetes. However, it
was discovered that petitioner has been previously diagnosed
with such illnesses. The petitioner knew that his conditions
were of such severity that he needed to take maintenance
medicine, but he consistently refused to acknowledge history of
his conditions. Moreover, petitioner failed to prove his defense
that the examining physician did not clearly record his answers
in the PEME.

Similarly, in Lerona v. Sea Power Shipping Enterprises, Inc.,

the petitioner answered "No" when asked if he had
hypertension although he had been taking "Norvac," a medicine
to treat such illness, for two years.

Foremost, the phrase "disqualified from any compensation and

benefits" in Section 20(E) of the POEA-SEC is without
qualifications and must be interpreted to include all kinds of
benefits including sickness allowance. A cardinal rule of
statutory construction is that if a statute is clear and free from
ambiguity, it must be given its literal meaning and applied
without any interpretation.

To be sure, in Vetyard Terminals & Shipping Services, Inc. and

Status Maritime Corp. v. Spouses Delalamon, this Court
reversed the CA's Decisions granting disability compensation
and sickness allowance after determining that the seafarers
were guilty of fraudulent concealment of pre-existing illnesses.

xxx
Besides, even if the Court were to assume that Suarez's eye
ailment was work-related, he still cannot claim disability benefits
since he concealed his true medical condition. The records
show that when Suarez underwent pre-employment medical
examination (PEME), he represented that he was merely
wearing corrective lens. He concealed the fact that he had a
cataract operation in 2005. He told the truth only when he was
being examined at the Medical City on May 18, 2007. This
willful concealment of a vital information in his PEME
disqualifies him from claiming disability benefits pursuant to
Section 20(E) of the which provides that "a seafarer who
knowingly conceals and does not disclose past medical
condition, disability and history in the pre-employment medical
examination constitutes fraudulent misrepresentation and shall
disqualify him from any compensation and benefits."
(Emphases supplied.)

In Status Maritime, the respondent filed against the petitioners

an action for disability benefits, sickness allowance, damages,
and attorney's fees. Allegedly, the respondent acquired his
illness of "Renal Insufficiency; Diabetes Mellitus; IHD Blood +
CBC + ANEMIA" during the term of his employment. On the
other hand, the petitioners argued that the illness is not
compensable because it was not work-related.

The petitioners further averred that during initial evaluation by

their physicians, the respondent claimed to have been
diagnosed with diabetes six years ago and has, since then,
been taking 500 mg of Metformin as maintenance medication.
Yet, the respondent concealed his illness during the PEME.
The LA and the NLRC dismissed the complaint. However, the
CA found that the respondent's employment contributed to the
development and exacerbation of his illness. Thus, the CA
granted disability compensation and sickness allowance.

Upon review, this Court ruled that the respondent is disqualified

from receiving any compensation or benefits for his illness
because he did not disclose it during his PEME that he was
suffering from diabetes, thus: Thus, for knowingly concealing
 his diabetes during the PEME, Margarito committed fraudulent
misrepresentation which under the POEA-SEC unconditionally
barred his right to receive any disability compensation or illness
benefit. This finding renders any issue on work-relatedness
irrelevant since the premise which bars disability.

Lastly, a PEME is not exploratory but merely determines

whether one is ''fit for sea service." The PEME does not state
the real state of health of an applicant. Relatively, the ''fit to
work' declaration in the Darwin's PEME cannot be a conclusive
proof to show that he was free from any ailment prior to his
deployment. The fact that Darwin passed the PEME cannot
excuse his willful concealment nor can it preclude PAL Maritime
from rejecting his claims. Taken together, Darwin is disqualified
from all benefits including sickness allowance.

29. Additionally, the case of TRANS-GLOBAL MARITIME

AGENCY, INC. AND/OR GOODWOOD SHIP MANAGEMENT, PTE.,
LTD., AND/OR ROBERT F. ESTANIEL, PETITIONERS, V. MAGNO T.
UTANES, RESPONDENT. (G.R. No. 236498, September 16, 2020) is also
on point. To wit-

The rule seeks to penalize seafarers who conceal information

to pass the pre-employment medical examination. It even
makes such concealment a just cause for termination. Under
the 2010 POEA-SEC, there is a"'pre-existing illness or
condition" if prior to the processing of the POEA contract, any of
the following is present: (a) the advice of a medical doctor on
treatment was given for such continuing illness or condition; or
(b) the seafarer has been diagnosed and has knowledge of
such illness or condition but failed to disclose it during the pre-
employment medical examination, and such cannot be
diagnosed during such examination.16

Here, Utanes' September 18, 2014 PEME indicated that he was

not suffering from any medical condition likely to be aggravated
by service at sea or which may render him unfit for sea service.
His medical history likewise did not show that he had heart
disease/vascular/chest pain, high blood pressure, or that he
underwent treatment for any ailment and was taking any
medication. Notably, he signed the PEME acknowledging that
he had read and understood and was informed of the contents
of the medical certificate. On the other hand, the company-
designated doctor's medical report, dated September 17, 2015,
stated that Utanes disclosed that he has a history of coronary
artery disease for which he underwent percutaneous coronary
intervention of the left anterior descending artery in 2009.
Evidently, Utanes obscured his pre-existing cardiac ailment.
This concealment disqualifies him from disability benefits
notwithstanding the medical attention extended by the
company-appointed physicians upon his repatriation.

It is immaterial that Utanes' misrepresentation was discovered

during the course of his treatment with the company-appointed
doctors. That medical attention was extended by the company-
appointed physicians cannot cancel out his deception. In
Manansala v. Marlow Navigation Phils., Inc., et al.}1 the
seafarer's concealment was revealed beyond the 120-day
treatment period, after the issuance of a final assessment by
the company-designated physicians, and even after a claim for
benefits was filed. Nonetheless, the Court declared that the
seafarer is not entitled to disability benefits because of
concealment. Also, in Status Maritime Corporation, et al. v.
Sps. Delalamon and Ayungo v. Beamko Shipmanagement
Corp., et al.,19the Court ruled against the seafarers, whose
concealment were found out while being treated by company
doctors. More so, in Philman Marine Agency, Inc., et al. v.
Cabanban,20 the Court did not award disability benefits to a
seaman whose concealment was discovered as early as his
examination at the port of his assignment and prior to
repatriation.

Time and again, it has been ruled that a PEME is generally not
exploratory in nature, nor is it a totally in-depth and thorough
examination of an applicant's medical condition.21 It does not
reveal the real state of health of an applicant, and does not
allow the employer to discover any and all preexisting medical
condition with which the seafarer is suffering and for which he
may be taking medication.22 The PEME is nothing more than a
summary examination of the seafarer's physiological condition
and is just enough for the employer to determine his fitness for
the nature of the work for which he is to be employed.23 Since
it is not exploratory, its failure to reveal or uncover Utanes'
ailments cannot shield him from the consequences of his
deliberate concealment24 The "fit to work" declaration in the
PEME cannot be a conclusive proof to show that he was free
from any ailment prior to his deployment.25

Here, Utanes' willful concealment of vital information in his

PEME disqualifies him from claiming disability benefits. The
Court on many occasions disqualified seafarers from claiming
disability benefits on account of fraudulent misrepresentation
arising from their concealment of a preexisting medical
condition.26 This case is not an exception. For knowingly
concealing his history of coronary artery disease during the
PEME, Utanes committed fraudulent misrepresentation which
unconditionally bars his right to receive any disability
compensation from petitioners.27