6/5/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly All other claims are DISMISSED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED.[3] Private respondents appealed to the NLRC which reversed and set aside the findings of the Labor Arbiter. The NLRC ruled as follows:[4] Records show that the evidence submitted by complainant in support of her claim for death benefits consist of medical results and medical certificates. Except for the chest x-ray conducted on May 5, 1998, the rest of the examinations conducted on complainant were done after he was repatriated on July 29, 2001. Further, the results of the examinations and the certificate issued merely speaks of medical finding of Awatin's lung problem. There were no showing that his lung cancer has reasonable connection with the nature of his work. It is to be noted that Awatin was employed by respondents as master of their vessel. And, according to complainant, as Master of the vessel the latest of which was the “Seabulk Treasure Island,” her husband oversees the general control, operation and management of the vessel which was used for delivering the supplies needed by respondents' customers in the oil rigs which consist of high grade industrial pipes and drilling equipment. Complainant claims that the exposure of her husband to the toxic residues of oil and industrial equipment aggravated his lung cancer. Such claim of complainant deserves scant consideration. Besides being hearsay, not a single evidence was submitted by complainant to buttress such claim. In fine, considering that the disease for which Awatin died is not workrelated, complainant's claim for death benefits must fail. WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision dated May 30, 2003 is hereby SET ASIDE and a new one entered dismissing the instant complaint for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. The motion for reconsideration was denied by the NLRC in its Resolution dated January 31, 2006.[5] Hence, petitioner filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with the CA and in its decision[6] dated March 21, 2007, the CA dismissed the case and affirmed the decision of the NLRC. The dispositive portion of the decision reads: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition is DISMISSED. The assailed Decision of the NLRC dated October 28, 2005 and its Resolution dated January 31, 2006 in NLRC NCR CA No. 036686-03 are hereby AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED. The CA, in a Resolution[7] dated on August 3, 2007, denied petitioners' motion for reconsideration. Hence, the present petition. elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/60645 3/7