history of bladder cancer, bladder birth defects, genetics, chemotherapy and radiation therapy are also risk factors for bladder cancer.[29]   The deceased allegedly suffered bouts of painful urination while onboard petitioners vessel. The pain would however subside upon the taking of pain relievers. Nevertheless, in the absence of substantial evidence, we cannot conclude that the pain was due to cancer. After all, painful urination is non specific to cancer and may be linked to other conditions. Moreover, there was no indication that petitioner was made aware of such painful spells while the deceased was on-board.   Respondents were unable to adduce evidence that the deceaseds work exposed him to the chemicals suspected to increase the risks of acquiring bladder cancer. Neither were they able to prove that his bladder cancer was acquired during his employment. As we earlier noted, ones predisposition to develop cancer is affected not only by ones work, but also by many factors outside of ones working environment. In the absence of substantial evidence, the deceaseds working conditions cannot be assumed to have increased the risk of contracting bladder cancer.           While it is true that labor contracts are impressed with public interest and the provisions of the POEA Standard Employment Contract must be construed fairly, reasonably and liberally in favor of Filipino seamen in the pursuit of their employment on board ocean-going vessels,[30] we should always be mindful that justice is in every case for the deserving, to be dispensed with in the light of established facts, the applicable law, and existing jurisprudence.[31]   WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The assailed Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 84794 are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The 30 December 2003 Resolution of the NLRC is REINSTATED.