Petitioners rely on the findings of both the LA and the NLRC that the death of Lutero is not compensable because it happened outside the term of his contract. Petitioners claim that the medical certificate issued by Dr. Ozaraga, certifying that Lutero was already fit to resume work, belies respondent's assertion that Lutero continued to be ill after his repatriation until his death. Petitioners also rely on the undertaking executed by Lutero, stating that, before he joined the vessel, he already had hypertension, and that he took medication prior to his medical examination. Thus, petitioners submit that Lutero committed material misrepresentation, disqualifying him from claiming the benefits provided for under the POEA-SEC.20[20]   On the other hand, respondent argues that petitioners failed to attach the pertinent documents and pleadings to the Petition, and that the petition raises factual issues in violation of Rule 45 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. Respondent asseverates that petitioners' stance that the employer is liable only if the death of the seafarer occurs exactly during the term of the contract violates the nature of the POEA-SEC and is contrary to the avowed policy of the State to accord utmost protection and justice to labor. Invoking our ruling in Wallem,21[21] respondent maintains that “it is enough that the employment had contributed, even in a small degree, to the development of the disease and in bringing about (the seafarer’s) death.” Respondent stresses that this Court allowed the award of death benefits in Wallem even if the seafarer therein died after the contract term. In the instant case, Lutero suffered a heart ailment while on board the vessel – the illness manifested 20[20] Id. 21[21] Supra note 15.