6/5/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly establishment or, at the very least, aggravation of any pre-existing condition he might have had.[51] (Citation omitted) Petitioner was unable to fulfill these requirements. She did not allege how the nature of Eduardo’s work as a bosun[52] contributed to the development or the aggravation of his illness. Further, he himself admitted that he had diabetes and hypertension prior to his embarkation. Considering that diabetes mellitus is not listed as an occupational disease under the 2000 POEA SEC and considering that petitioner did not prove how Eduardo’s occupation contributed to the development of his illness, no error can be attributed to the Court of Appeals when it affirmed the National Labor Relations Commission’s Decision and Resolution. Petitioner further argues that respondents should not be absolved from any liability simply because Eduardo died after the term of his contract.[53] Indeed, it is quite possible that a work-related illness may progress at a slow pace such that a seafarer’s death will happen beyond the term of the employment contract. In such cases, the provisions of the POEA SEC should not limit the rights of seafarers to be compensated. The concurring opinion in Interorient Maritime Enterprises, Inc. v. Creer III[54] discussed that: [t]he Philippine Overseas Employment Administration or POEA regulations require certain provisions to be put in the employment contract. Necessarily, it prescribes a procedure that finds a balance of interest in both the amount and the process for recovery of compensation as a result of occupational hazards suffered by the seafarer. The cause of action in such recovery is based on contract inclusive of both statutory and regulatory provisions impliedly included in it. While this may be the theory pursued in practice, substantive law still allows recovery of damages for injuries suffered by the seafarer as a result of a tortious violation on the part of the employer. This may be on the basis of the provisions of the Civil Code as well as special laws. These special laws may relate, among others, to environmental regulations and requirements to ensure the reduction of risks to occupational hazards both for the seafarer and the public in general. In such cases, the process for recovery should not be constrained by contract.[55] However, petitioner did not allege facts that would sway this court to grant the Petition. She did not present evidence to show how Eduardo’s diabetes mellitus was aggravated by his work and how his illness caused his death. On the contrary, petitioner’s allegations further convinced this court that the Court of Appeals did not err elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/59159 7/12