occurred in a port where local government laws or regulations do not permit the transport of such remains. In this case death occurs at sea, the disposition of the remains shall be handled or dealt with in accordance with the masters best judgment. In all cases, the employer/master shall communicate with the manning agency to advi[c]e for disposition of seafarers remains.   c.     The employer shall pay the beneficiaries of the seafarer the Philippine 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.(Emphasis supplied)[14]     This Court, in Gau Sheng Phils., Inc. v. Joaquin, Hermogenes v. Osco Shipping Services, Inc.,[15] and Prudential Shipping and Management Corporation v. Sta. Rita,[16] declared that in order to avail of death benefits, the death of the employee should occur during the effectivity of the employment contract. As stated in Prudential,   The death of a seaman during the term of employment makes the employer liable to his heirs for death compensation benefits. Once it is established that the seaman died during the effectivity of his employment contract, the employer is liable. However, if the seaman dies after the termination of his contract of employment, his beneficiaries are not entitled to the death benefits enumerated above.[17]   It is therefore error on the part of the Court of Appeals to declare that x x x Section 20(A)4 should be read to mean that it is sufficient that the illness which led to the death occurred during the term of the employment contract.[18] It is an interpretation clearly not in accord with the decisions of this Court.   The deceaseds last contract with petitioners was finished uneventfully on 20 September 1999. He died on 5 March 2001, one and a half years after the termination of his employment. His heirs, therefore, are not entitled to death benefits under the Standard Contract.     In justifying the grant of death benefits, the heirs rely on the cases of Seagull Ship Management and Transport, Inc. v. NLRC,[19]NFD International Manning Agents, Inc. v. NLRC,[20] Interorient Maritime Enterprises , Inc. v. NLRC[21] and Wallem Maritime Services Inc. v. NLRC.[22] However, a review of the said cases reveals that they are not applicable to the instant case.