4/9/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly of the NLRC in dismissing her claim for death benefits. In its Decision, dated 31 May 2006, the CA set aside the questioned NLRC Resolution and ordered petitioners to pay the claimed benefits of respondent, the dispositive portion of the Decision reads: WHEREFORE, the instant petition is GRANTED. The assailed NLRC Resolution dated April 30, 20204 (sic) is SET ASIDE. The NLRC decision promulgated on October 20, 2003 is REINSTATED with MODIFICATION. Thus, private respondents are hereby ordered to pay petitioner the claimed death benefits, child allowances, and burial expenses in the total amount of US$65,000.00 or its peso equivalent, to be computed at the time of payment, plus ten percent (10%) of the aforementioned total monetary award as attorney’s fees. SO ORDERED. The CA was of the view that petitioners failed to negate the causal confluence of the burn injury suffered by Zosimo while on board the vessel, the onset of tetanus and the complication of pneumonia which was indicated as Zosimo’s cause of death. It stressed that “strict rules of evidence, x x x, are not applicable in claims for compensation and disability benefits.”[18] The CA emphasized that it was enough that the hypothesis on which the employee’s claim was based was probable. Zosimo’s failure to report for post employment medical examination at petitioner’s office within the mandatory period of seventy two (72) hours from his return to the Philippines, as required by the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) Standard Employment Contract[19] (SEC), should not be automatically taken against him. The CA cited Wallem Maritime Services, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission,[20] which justified the exception from the application of the 72-hour requirement, by showing that a seaman who was terminally ill and in need of medical attention could not be expected to immediately comply with the medical examination and thus given the right to claim benefits due him. Petitioners moved for reconsideration, but their motion was denied by the CA in its November 14, 2006 Resolution. Hence, this petition. THE ISSUE WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN AWARDING DEATH BENEFITS TO THE RESPONDENT. Petitioners’ argument In support of their position, petitioners assert that respondent’s declaration that the death of Zosimo was compensable because the latter died due to tetanus had no factual basis. Tetanus was never established, much less existed, in the case. Based on the Autopsy Report[21] submitted by respondent, the cause of death was “Pneumonia with congestion of elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/55408 5/11