6/5/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly twenty-one (21) but not exceeding four (4) children, at the exchange rate prevailing during the time of payment. (Emphasis supplied.) Thus, it is clear that for the death of a seafarer to be compensable, the same must occur during the term of his contract of employment.[20] If the seaman dies after the termination of his contract, his beneficiaries are not entitled to death benefits.[21] In the instant case, Padrones' employment contract ended on November 23, 1999. He died on April 25, 2001, more than one (1) year and five (5) months from the time his employment contract expired. It, therefore, follows that respondents, who are the beneficiaries of Padrones, are not entitled to death benefits. Even if the Court were to consider the possibility of compensation for the death of Padrones after the termination of his employment contract on account of a work-related illness, respondents, nonetheless, did not present evidence to prove that he acquired lung cancer during his employment and that the said disease, which caused his death, was the reason for the termination of his contract. On the contrary, respondents claimed that Padrones was afflicted only with tuberculosis during his employment. In fact, they even failed to present substantial evidence to show that Padrones acquired this illness while he was employed nor were they able to prove their contention that it contributed to his death. Not being entitled to death benefits, the question that follows now is whether respondents are, instead, entitled to the disability benefits awarded by the CA. The answer is no. Respondents did not seek payment of disability benefits in their Complaint,[22] Position Paper,[23] Reply,[24] Rejoinder,[25] and Memorandum[26] filed with the LA. In fact, in their Reply to herein petitioners' Position Paper, respondents argued as follows: xxxx There is no requirement under the POEA Contract that Mr. Padrones should comply with the mandatory reporting requirement. Sec. 20 (B) (3) of the POEA Standard Contract of Employment is not applicable in the instant case. Such provides for Compensation and Benefits for Injury or Illness, which are not the proper subject of the claims of Complainant. Complainant is asking for Compensation and Benefits for Death. x x x x x x x[27] (Underline supplied) On the other hand, in their Comment/Opposition to [herein petitioners'] Notice of Appeal and Memorandum of Appeal,[28] respondents only prayed that the grant of death benefits and attorney's fees in their favor be affirmed by the NLRC. Nothing therein shows that they raised before the LA, the NLRC or even the CA the issue of their or Padrones' entitlement to disability benefits. The resolution of this issue requires elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/59749 5/9