this case, this does not disprove misrepresentation. Ironically, it proves that Arbit knew he had previous illness and he did not disclose it. We are also not persuaded by Arbits defenses: he believed that he did not have any serious illnesses before; and, he was under the belief that he would undergo rigid preemployment medical examination and any serious illness/es would be discovered by the petitioners company-designated physicians.[37] This good faith defense is negated by his misrepresentation in his employment history. He concealed a material fact when he did not state the name of his last employer with whom he executed the Release and Quitclaim in consideration of the illness he suffered on the latters vessel. It is the ultimate prayer of petitioner that due to misrepresentation, Arbit must be denied his other claims and benefits under the Contract. We disagree. We affirm the appellate courts award for unpaid salary and other benefits, sickwage allowance, full repatriation cost and transportation cost of Arbits reliever, full medical and hospitalization expenses, and attorneys fees. 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. Despite his misrepresentation, Arbit underwent and passed the required premedical examination, was declared fit to work, and was suffered to work by petitioner. Upon repatriation, he complied with the required post-employment medical examination. Under the beneficent provisions of the Contract, it is enough that the work has contributed, even in a small degree, to the development of the disease and in bringing about his death.[38] Strict proof of causation is not required.[39] As stated by the Court of Appeals: x x x In the case at bar, it cannot be denied that as the Tug Master of MV Grouper Ann, Arbit has an enormous responsibility and pressure to deal with in view of the fact that he is not only responsible for the safety of the vessel but more importantly, he is responsible for the lives and well-being of his crew. That is why in one (1) of his letters to Mr. Linden, he complained about the insufficiency of their provisions and the delay in their delivery. As a tug master, such deplorable plight of his crew caused him extreme anxiety and work pressure which took a heavy toll on his health and has surely contributed even in a small degree to the development of his illness. [40] To be sure, petitioners delay in heeding the requests of Arbit for his replacement and immediate repatriation cannot be denied. Arbit had to write three (3) letters before a response could be elicited from Linden Shipping International. This is aggravated by the fact that when Linden finally replied, it requested Arbit to give them more time because India was not a convenient port for crew change. Lindens concern for convenience hardly overrides Arbits urgent need for medical attention. Given these circumstances, it was not abandonment when Arbit signed-off and disembarked for medical reasons without waiting for a reliever.