of twenty-one (21), as allowances; and US$1,000.00 as burial expenses. Costs against the private respondents.   SO ORDERED.16[16]   On October 15, 2007, petitioners filed their Motion for Reconsideration,17 [17] which was, however, denied by the CA in its Resolution18[18] dated December 20, 2007.   Hence, this Petition based on the following grounds:     1) THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THAT RESPONDENT IS NOT ENTITLED TO DEATH BENEFITS UNDER THE POEA STANDARD EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT FOR THE DEATH OF HER HUSBAND OCCUR[R]ING ONE YEAR AFTER THE TERM OF HIS CONTRACT;   2) THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THAT RESPONDENT IS NOT ENTITLED TO DEATH BENEFITS UNDER THE POEA STANDARD EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT FOR THE DEATH OF HER HUSBAND AS THE LATTER'S DEATH WAS DUE TO [A] PRE-EXISTING ILLNESS[; and]   3) THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THAT THE RESPONDENT IS NOT ENTITLED TO DEATH BENEFITS UNDER THE POEA STANDARD 16[16] Supra note 2, at 43-44. 17[17] Rollo, pp. 75-82. 18[18] Id. at 46.