4/9/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly residual obligations of the employer. On the contrary the evidence adduced by complainant establishes that the deceased had proceeded to the province. x x x. Given all the attending circumstances as confirmed by the documentary evidence on record, we are convinced, as duly concluded by the Labor Arbiter that the cause of the seafarer’s death cannot be traced to the burns or injuries sustained while he was on board the vessel. Indeed, the complainant has not established a causality between the injury sustained on board the vessel, and the cause of death. We assiduously perused the records and conclude that the complainant has failed to prove that her husband, subsequent to his repatriation, had experienced and/or manifested the symptoms of tetanus the source of which could be ascribed to the 3rd degree burns he had suffered on board. Moreover, the seafarer’s act of proceeding to the province without reporting to the respondent agency must be deemed as a supervening event that adversely limits his right or that of his beneficiaries to claim benefits under the contract. Where, as in this case, the cause of death has not been evidently shown to be due to the injury suffered on board and during the term of the contract, no liability can be adjudged against the employers for the subsequent death of the seafarer. In so ruling, we simply defer to the basic rule in evidence that each party must prove his affirmative allegation. While technical rules are not followed in the NLRC, this does not mean that rules on proving allegations are entirely dispensed with. Bare allegations are not enough; these must be supported by substantial evidence at the very least. Accordingly, complainant’s unsubstantiated allegations that her husband had manifested and complained of symptoms of tetanus, being wanting in evidentiary support cannot outweigh and overcome the probative value of the medical certificates, autopsy findings and medical reports indubitably showing that the deceased had died of pneumonia. And, while it may be conceded that pneumonia can be caused by or traced to tetanus, as what the complainant has attempted to establish, such conclusion may not be drawn in this case as to render the death compensable, considering the attendance of the supervening event, and the fact that no such reference to a possible infection has been made in any of the medical reports that would link the injuries resulting from the burns, to the actual cause of death. x x x.[17] [Underscoring supplied] Aggrieved by the NLRC Resolution, respondent elevated the case to the CA via a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court alleging grave abuse of discretion on the part elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/55408 4/11