6/5/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly the time of payment. SO ORDERED.[7] Aggrieved, petitioners filed an appeal with the NLRC contending that, contrary to the claims of respondents that Padrones died of tuberculosis, he, in fact, died of lung cancer.[8] Petitioners also argued that Padrones' death is not compensable because he did not die during the effectivity of his contract; instead, he died one year and five months after his employment contract expired and that his death was due to an illness which was not related to nor contracted from his employment.[9] On April 18, 2005, the NLRC promulgated its Decision[10] reversing the Decision of the LA and dismissing respondents' complaint for lack of merit. The NLRC held that: xxxx x x x "as over emphasized by appellant [herein petitioners] the seafarer [Padrones] passed away one year and five months from the time he finished his employment contract. The employment contract expired on October 30, 1999, but was repatriated on November 23, 1999; Mr. Padrones, the seafarer died on April 25, 2001. Clearly, the employment contract was no longer in force when the seafarer died. Applying the POEA SEC [Standard Employment Contract], complainants are not entitled to death benefits. Respondents-appellants were able to belie appellee's allegation that complainant was repatriated due to medical reasons. Appellants submitted in evidence a copy of the CLAIM FORM filled up by Mr. Padrones when he reported to respondent's office after sign off from the vessel. In the said claim form, the deceased was asked of his claims, including claims for illness or injury. Mr. Padrones affixed, N/A or "not applicable." x x x x[11] Respondents filed a Motion for Reconsideration,[12] but the NLRC denied it in its Resolution[13] dated February 24, 2006. Respondents then filed a special civil action for certiorari with the CA contending that the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in reversing the decision of the LA which granted death benefits in their favor.[14] In its assailed Decision promulgated on August 17, 2007, the CA ruled in respondents' favor. The CA held that, while respondents are not entitled to death benefits, they should be paid disability benefits which has accrued in favor of Padrones prior to his death. The CA held that: elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/59749 2/9