It need not be overemphasized that in the absence of substantial evidence, working conditions cannot be accepted to have caused or at least increased the risk of contracting the disease, in this case, brief psychotic disorder. Substantial evidence is more than a mere scintilla.  The evidence must be real and substantial, and not merely apparent; for the duty to prove work-causation or work-aggravation imposed by law is real and not merely apparent.24[24]   Even in case of death of a seafarer, the grant of benefits in favor of the heirs of the deceased is not automatic. As in the case of Rivera v. Wallem Maritime Services, Inc.,25[25] without a post-medical examination or its equivalent to show that the disease for which the seaman died was contracted during his employment or that his working conditions increased the risk of contracting the ailment, the employer/s cannot be made liable for death compensation.    In fact, in Mabuhay Shipping Services, Inc. v. NLRC,26[26] the Court held that the death of a seaman even during the term of employment does not automatically give rise to compensation.  Several factors must be taken into account such as the circumstances which led to the death, the provisions of the contract, and the right and obligation of the employer 24[24] Aya-ay v. Arpaphil Shipping Corp., G.R. No. 155359, January 31, 2006, 481 SCRA 282, 294-295. 25[25] G.R. No. 160315, November 11, 2005, 474 SRA 714, 723. 26[26] G.R. No. 94167, January 21, 1991, 193 SCRA 141, 145.