5/28/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly employment, the above-mentioned rule should squarely apply. Perforce, the present claim for death benefits should be granted.[66] (Citations omitted) As elucidated in Canuel, the foregoing liberal approach was applied in Inter-Orient Maritime, Incorporated v. Candava,[67] Interorient Maritime Enterprises, Inc. v. Remo, [68] and Wallem Maritime Services, Inc. v. NLRC,[69] wherein the Court had previously allowed the recovery of death benefits even if the seafarers in those cases had died after repatriation, given that there was proof of a clear causal connection between their work and the illness which was contracted in the course of employment, and their eventual death. The converse conclusion was reached in the cases of Gau Sheng Phils., Inc. v. Joaquin[70] (Gau Sheng), Spouses Aya-ay, Sr. v. Arpaphil Shipping Corp.[71] (Spouses Aya-ay, Sr.), Hermogenes v. Osco Shipping Services, Inc.,[72] Prudential Shipping and Management Corp. v. Sta. Rita[73] (Prudential), and Ortega v. CA[74] (Ortega), since the element of work-relatedness had not been established. All in all, the sense gathered from these cases, as pointed out in Canuel, is that it is crucial to determine whether the death of the deceased was reasonably connected with his work, or whether the working conditions increased the risk of contracting the disease that resulted in the seafarer’s death. If the injury or illness is the proximate cause, or at least increased the risk of his death for which compensation is sought, recovery may be had for said death, or for that matter, for the injury or illness. Thus, in Seagull Shipmanagement and Trans., Inc. v. NLRC,[75] the Court significantly observed that: Even assuming that the ailment of the worker was contracted prior to his employment, this still would not deprive him of compensation benefits. For what matters is that his work had contributed, even in a small degree, to the development of the disease and in bringing about his eventual death. Neither is it necessary, in order to recover compensation, that the employee must have been in perfect health at the time he contracted the disease. A worker brings with him possible infirmities in the course of his employment, and while the employer is not the insurer of the health of the employees, he takes them as he finds them and assumes the risk of liability. If the disease is the proximate cause of the employee’s death for which compensation is sought, the previous physical condition of the employee is unimportant, and recovery may be had for said death, independently of any pre-existing disease. [76] (Emphases and underscoring supplied; citations omitted) Employing the same spirit of liberality as fleshed out in Canuel, the Court finds that it would be highly inequitable and even repugnant to the State’s policy on labor to deny petitioner’s claim for death benefits for the mere technicality triggered by Rodolfo’s prior medical repatriation. As it has been clearly established that Rodolfo had been suffering from a work-related illness during the term of his employment that caused his medical repatriation and, ultimately, his death on March 2, 2008, it is but proper to consider the same as a compensable work-related death despite it having occurred after his repatriation. To echo Canuel, “it is enough that the seafarer’s work-related elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/58338 10/18