4/29/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly ill but was not given medical attention. From the time he was confined at the ICU he never recovered and was in and out of the hospital several times. He may not have died during the period of his contract, but it is enough that the employment had contributed even in a small degree to the development of the disease and in bringing about his death. As a result, the CA granted respondent death benefits consisting of the following:[24] 1. US$50,000.00 as death benefits; 2. US$7,000.00 as the minor child’s allowance; and 3. US$1,000.00 as burial expenses. Petitioners moved for reconsideration, but their motion was denied by the CA.[25] Consequently, they filed the present Rule 45 petition. They strongly refute not only the additional grant of death benefits, but also the award of illness benefits already given by the NLRC. Petitioners harp on the absence of substantial evidence to prove that the illness of Armando during his service, if it already existed at the time, was work-related. They also fault the CA for only making a “safe presumption” that his alleged work-related illness led to his demise. Aside from emphasizing respondent’s lack of proof, petitioners advance the argument that death benefits cannot be awarded to respondent, because her husband did not die during the term of his contract. In turn, respondent counters in her Comment[26] that since the NLRC found that Armando contracted a work-related illness resulting in the grant of illness benefits, it then follows that death benefits are likewise due to her. Through this Petition for Review on Certiorari, this Court now reviews whether the CA correctly deemed that the LA and the NLRC committed a grave abuse of discretion amounting to the lack or excess of jurisdiction in refusing to award death benefits on top of the illness benefits allegedly due to respondent. RULING OF THE COURT In compensation proceedings for seafarers, this Court refers to the provisions of the POEA Contract as it memorializes the minimum rights of a seafarer and the concomitant obligations of an employer.[27] Section 20(A) thereof pertinently discusses the rules on granting death benefits. Nevertheless, on account of the liberal interpretation permeating seafarer’s agreements,[28] we also consider the possibility of compensation for the death of the seafarer under Section 32-A of the POEA Contract. Death Benefits under Section 20(A) of the POEA Contract Section 20(A) of the POEA Contract, and a long line of jurisprudence explaining the provision,[29] require that for respondent to be entitled to death benefits, Armando elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/56149 5/13