6/7/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly Also, in Southeastern Shipping, et al. v. Navarra, Jr.,[26] the Court declared that in order to avail of death benefits, the death of the employee should occur during the effectivity of the employment contract. The death of a seaman during the term of employment makes the employer liable to his heirs for death compensation benefits. Once it is established that the seaman died during the effectivity of his employment contract, the employer is liable.[27] In the more recent case of Talosig v. United Philippine Lines, Inc.,[28] the Court again reiterated that the death of a seafarer must have occurred during the term of his contract of employment for it to be compensable. In the present case, it is undisputed that Rogelio succumbed to cancer on July 4, 2000 or almost ten (10) months after the expiration of his contract and almost nine (9) months after his repatriation. Thus, on the basis of Section 20(A) and the above-cited jurisprudence explaining the provision, Rogelio's beneficiaries, the petitioners, are precluded from receiving death benefits. Moreover, even if the Court considers the possibility of compensation for the death of a seafarer occurring after the termination of the employment contract on account of a work-related illness under Section 32(A) of the POEA-SEC, the claimant must still fulfill all the requisites for compensability, to wit: 1. The seafarer's work must involve the risks described herein; 2. The disease was contracted as a result of the seafarer's exposure to the described risks; 3. The disease was contracted within a period of exposure and under such other factors necessary to contract it; 4. There was no notorious negligence on the part of the seafarer.[29] In the present case, the petitioners failed to adduce sufficient evidence to show that Rogelio's illness was acquired during the term of his employment with the respondents. Instead, what the petitioners presented were medical certificate issued by Dr. Dungo dated November 12, 1999 attesting that Rogelio consulted him due to weakness and numbness of Rogelio's left half body and lower extremities and medical examination results in March and April 2000 showing that he had cancer. The Court, however, finds it not sufficient proof to show a causal connection or at least a work relation between the employment of Rogelio and his cancer. In the absence of substantial evidence, Rogelio's working conditions cannot be assumed to have increased the risk of contracting cancer. In Medline Management, Inc., et al. v. Roslinda, et al.,[30] the Court held: Indeed, the death of a seaman several months after his repatriation for illness does not necessarily mean that: a) the seaman died of the same illness; b) his working conditions increased the risk of contracting the illness elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/61878 5/8