his successful operation and after he had been declared fit to resume his duties. Moreover, the illnesses that caused his demise were in no way related to hernia, nor were these aggravated by his work as an oiler. Even his cirrhosis was not caused by the nature of his work, as his own doctor opined that this was due to alcoholic liver disease caused by excessive alcohol intake which developed over a long period of time. The mere fact that Virgilio was found fit to work during his pre-employment medical examination does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that the illness that caused his death was acquired during the course of employment. There is, likewise, no evidence on record to prove that Virgilio was exposed to chemicals or that he skipped meals while working.Since there was no basis for the CA to conclude a work-connection or work-aggravation, petitioners should not be held liable for death and funeral benefits. Also, they should not be made to pay sickness allowance, as this was already given to Virgilio, nor damages and attorneys fees, for petitioners faithfully complied with their obligation when the deceased became ill while on board. No premium should further be placed on the right to litigate.   In their comment on the petition, respondents averred that the issues raised by petitioners are factual, which are improper in a petition for review on certiorari.Respondents reiterated that even if Virgilio died after his employment with respondents had already been terminated, petitioners are nevertheless liable for the death benefits. This is in accordance with the ruling of this Court in Wallem Maritime Services, Inc., et al. v. National Labor Relations Commission. [43]  Respondents, likewise, maintained that the decision of the CA is in accord with law and the evidence on record. Respondents contend that there is a causal relationship between Virgilios death and his employment with petitioners. In several cases decided by the court, death compensation was awarded despite the fact that the death of the seaman occurred after the expiration of his employment contract. While Virgilio was indeed repatriated due to hernia, he was also diagnosed to be ill of liver cirrhosis. The existence of such a disease during the term of his contract entitles respondents to compensation for death benefits. They insisted that Virgilios exposure to chemicals and toxins as an oiler contributed to the development or aggravation of his illness. Respondents claim that in compensation proceedings, the ultimate degree of certainty is not required to establish the claim. It is enough that the theory in which the claimants anchor their claim is probable, considering the circumstances surrounding the case. Respondents are not duty bound to prove work-connection since the 1996 POEA Standard Employment Contract does not