4/29/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly must have suffered a work-related death during the term of his contract. The provision reads: SECTION 20. COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS A. COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS FOR DEATH 1. In case of work-related death of the seafarer, during the term of his contract the employer shall pay his beneficiaries the Philippine Currency equivalent to the amount of Fifty Thousand US dollars (US$50,000) and an additional amount of Seven Thousand US dollars (US$7,000) to each child under the age of twenty-one (21) but not exceeding four (4) children, at the exchange rate prevailing during the time of payment. xxxx 4. The other liabilities of the employer when the seafarer dies as a result of work-related injury or illness during the term of employment are as follows: xxxx c. The employer shall pay the beneficiaries of the seafarer the Philippines currency equivalent to the amount of One Thousand US dollars (US$1,000) for burial expenses at the exchange rate prevailing during the time of payment. Here, it is undisputed that Armando died on 1 March 2005 or six months after his repatriation. Thus, on the basis of Section 20(A), his beneficiaries are precluded from receiving death benefits. In relying upon this provision, both the LA and the NLRC correctly exercised their discretion in denying respondent’s claims for death benefits. Death Benefits under Section 32-A of the POEA Contract Under its auspices, however, the CA found that the labor courts had gravely abused their discretion in refusing to grant death benefits to respondent. According to the CA, petitioners must pay USD 58,000 death benefits under Section 20(B)(4) in relation to Section 32 of the POEA Contract. Section 20(B)(4) of the POEA Contract provides that “those illnesses not listed in Section 32 of this Contract are disputably presumed as work related.” Given that Armando’s lung cancer is not listed under Section 32,[30] it follows that the CA correctly afforded respondent the benefit of the presumption under the law. However, the CA failed to appreciate that Section 20(B)(4) only affords a disputable presumption. In Leonis Navigation Co., Inc. v. Villamater,[31] we explained that the legal presumption in Section 20(B)(4) should be read together with the requirements specified by Section 32-A of the POEA Contract. Unlike Section 20(A), Section 32-A of the POEA Contract considers the possibility of elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/56149 6/13