4/29/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly Aggrieved, respondent appealed to the NLRC. Citing Internet websites, she included in her appeal the job description of an Able Seaman as reasonable proof that the work of Armando increased the risk of his lung cancer.[11] She also highlighted the statements in her own Affidavit to bolster her claim that Armando suffered from constant headaches while at sea.[12] This time around, respondent obtained a favorable ruling from the NLRC, which awarded her illness benefits.[13] It ruled that the immediate confinement of Armando a mere two days after his arrival could only mean that he was already in a deteriorating physical condition when he disembarked. As regards the lack of a medical report during his service, the NLRC took judicial notice of the “evil practice” of denying sick seafarers “the necessary medical attention during the period of their employment so that their employers could later on disclaim liability for their injury, illness or death on the ground that they did not sustain any injury or suffer any illness during the period in question.”[14] Finally, the NLRC held that petitioners failed to dispute the legal presumption in Section 32 in relation to Section 20(B)(4) of the POEA Contract characterizing lung cancer as a work-related illness. Thus, the NLRC ordered petitioners to pay respondent the following amounts:[15] 1. The amount of P47,144.00 representing the cost of seafarer Salazar’s medicines and hospitalization; 2. The equivalent in Philippine currency at the time of actual payment of US$1,540.00 representing seafarer Salazar’s sickness allowance (US$385 x 4 mos. = US$1,540.00); 3. The amount of P500,000.00 as moral damages; and 4. Ten percent (10%) of the total judgment award as and for attorney’s fees. Noticeably, the NLRC did not award death benefits to respondent. It simply stated that the death of Armando was not compensable, because he did not die during the term of his contract. Dissatisfied with the grant of illness benefits only, Salazar filed a Motion for Reconsideration[16] in order to claim death benefits. For their part, petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration,[17] praying that the LA Decision denying all of respondent’s claims be reinstated. In a minute Resolution,[18] the NLRC denied both motions. Through a Rule 65 petition, respondent assailed before the CA the denial of death benefits by the LA and the NLRC.[19] On the other hand, petitioners no longer instituted an action for certiorari. At this point therefore, the NLRC’s grant of monetary awards consisting of illness benefits, moral damages, and attorney’s fees are already final and elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/56149 3/13