examination, was reported fit to work, and was suffered to work on board M/V Author for more than two (2) months, until his repatriation on June 19, 1997.   The rule is that an ailment contracted even prior to his employment, does not detract from the compensability of the disease. It is not required that the employment be the sole factor in the growth, development or acceleration of the illness to entitle the claimant to the benefits incident thereto. It is enough that the employment had contributed, even in a small measure, to the development of the disease.[21]     In this case, POMI failed to rebut De Jesus claim that he was required to work even during mealtime and that the meals served on board did not fit the dietary preference of the Filipinos. Such plight took a toll on De Jesus health and surely contributed, even in a slight degree, to the relapse of his illness. In OSM Shipping Philippines, Inc. v. Dela Cruz,[22] this Court, in granting similar claims, held:     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 pre-medical 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. Strict proof of causation is not required.[23]     De Jesus misrepresentation cannot, therefore, be made basis by POMI for the denial of his claims under the contract.