E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly 3 of 18 http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/57858 his employment was deemed terminated after his medical repatriation, still, it cannot be doubted that his death was brought about by the same or similar cause or illness which caused him to be repatriated.[24] Thus, it sustained the findings of the LA that petitioners are entitled to receive compensation for Nancing’s death.[25] It further affirmed the award of damages and attorney’s fees in petitioners’ favor but found respondents not liable for sickness allowance and burial benefits since the same were already paid by respondents.[26] Dissatisfied, respondents sought reconsideration[27] but were denied by the NLRC in a Resolution[28] dated June 18, 2008, prompting them to elevate the case to the CA on certiorari.[29] The CA Ruling In a Decision[30] dated May 19, 2009, the CA found that the NLRC Ruling was tainted with grave abuse of discretion and, thus, rendered a new judgment dismissing petitioners’ complaint for death benefits.[31] Citing the case of Klaveness Maritime Agency, Inc. v. Beneficiaries of the Late Second Officer Anthony S. Allas (Klaveness),[32] it held that the death of the seafarer after the termination of his contract is not compensable, even if the death is caused by the same illness which prompted the repatriation of the seafarer and the termination of his contract.[33] Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration[34] therefrom was denied by the CA in a Resolution[35] dated October 30, 2009, hence, the instant petition. The Issue Before the Court The core issue for the Court’s resolution is whether or not the CA committed reversible error in holding that the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in granting petitioners’ complaint for death benefits. Petitioners claim that the death of Nancing after his repatriation is compensable because it was the accident he suffered on board the vessel that triggered his traumatic hemothorax,[36] eventually leading to his acute respiratory failure, the immediate cause of his death.[37] Echoing the CA, respondents aver that since the Nancing’s employment contract was deemed terminated when he was medically repatriated on March 24, 2007, petitioners are not entitled to death and other benefits.[38] They also maintain that Nancing died of lung cancer which is not a work-related illness.[39] The Court’s Ruling The terms and conditions of a seafarer’s employment are governed by the provisions 3/27/2020, 12:51 PM