NLRC when it denied their claim for death benefits. The appellate court granted the petition, ruling that compensability under the Standard Contract should be understood to cover an illness which led to the death of a seafarer occurring during the term of the employment contract, and should not be limited to death occuring during the term of his employment. It held that while the exact cause of cancer was still unknown, it is a disease which is not contracted and developed overnight but rather progresses in different stages. Thus, there was a likelihood that the disease was contracted by the deceased while he was onboard one of petitioners ships.[9] The Court of Appeals ordered:   x x x Accordingly, the private respondent is ordered to pay the petitioners the amount FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS (US$50,000), SEVEN THOUSAND DOLLARS (US$7,000), for each of the two minor children and ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS (US$1,000) as burial allowance, pursuant to Section 20(A) of the POEA-prescribed Standard Employment Contract.   SO ORDERED.[10]       Petitioner sought a reconsideration of the decision, but its motion was denied by the Court of Appeals.[11]   Petitioner now claims that it is erroneous on the part of the Court of Appeals to reverse the decision of the NLRC because the same is supported by substantial evidence contained in the records of the case. Moreover, the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC concur in their factual findings upon which both based their similar conclusions. In addition, petitioner argues that the Standard Contract provides death benefits only to beneficiaries of seafarers who die during the term of the contract. Thus the heirs are not entitled to death benefits because the deceased died more than one and a half years after completion of the contract. It claims that the statements about the deceaseds condition during the term of his contract (i.e., bouts of painful urination) are hearsay, being based merely on what the deceased told his wife. Besides, the deceased failed to inform his superiors about the pain he was suffering from while aboard the ship, thus, he was not properly diagnosed and appropriately treated. Moreover, the fit to work declaration in the deceaseds Pre-employment Medical Examination (PEME) is not a conclusion that he was free from any ailment prior to his deployment, the PEME not being exploratory in nature. Finally, petitioner claims that Allas heirs failed to adduce any evidence that the risk of contracting bladder cancer was increased by his working conditions.[12]