THIRD, the deceased seaman died long after his employment of a disease which did not manifest during such employment, and which is a known fatal and fast acting illness, such that the respondents cannot be held liable for death benefits and damages including attorneys fees arising therefrom.[30]   On May 26, 2003, the NLRC reversed the decision of the Labor Arbiter and dismissed the complaint.[31] According to the NLRC, death and burial benefits could not be awarded to respondents. Under the POEA Standard Employment Contract, these benefits are given if the seafarer died during the term of his contract. Since the seafarer passed away one year after his repatriation (i.e., his contract was already terminated), respondents were not entitled to death benefits.   The NLRC, likewise, ruled that respondents were not entitled to sickness allowance because they did not pray for such relief in their position paper. In fact, petitioners attached to their appeal memorandum evidence that sickness allowance had been paid to respondents. The fallo of the decision reads: WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby REVERSED, and the instant case DISMISSED for lack of merit.   SO ORDERED.[32]     Respondents filed a motion for reconsideration[33] which the NLRC denied. [34]  This prompted the respondents (petitioners for brevity) to file a petition forcertiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court before the CA. [35]  Petitioners insisted that the public respondent committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of its jurisdiction in reversing and setting aside the decision of the Labor Arbiter and in dismissing their complaint.[36] They averred that, although Virgilio died of cardiopulmonary arrest one year from the date of his repatriation, they were still entitled to death benefits. Citing the ruling in Ijares v. Court of Appeals,[37] they averred that the main consideration for compensability is that the cause of death of the deceased was contracted during and by reason of his employment, and any non-work related factor that contributed to its aggravation is immaterial. What is decisive is that the cause of death of the deceased is work-related and aggravated his condition or contributed, even in a small degree, to its development. Petitioners pointed out that the deceased was an oiler and was exposed to different kinds of chemicals and extreme heat in the engine room of the vessel. Contrary to respondents contention, the deceased was not yet well when he was repatriated because he was found suffering from