6/5/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly May 2005. The said request was granted by the petitioners. Hence, Ildefonso was duly paid of all that was due him as a result of his employment and, subsequently, Ildefonso was repatriated to the Philippines on May 21, 2005. From the above findings and circumstance, it is clear that at the time of Ildefonso's repatriation, the employer-employee relationship between Ildefonso and the petitioners had already been terminated. Thus, the Labor Arbiter was correct in concluding that the terms and conditions contained in the contract of employment ceased to have force and effect, including the payment of death compensation benefits to the heirs of a seafarer who dies during the term of his contract as provided for in Section 20 (A) of the POEA Standard Employment Contract, which states: A. COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS FOR DEATH 1. In case of work-related death of a seafarer during the term of his contract, the employer shall pay his beneficiaries the Philippine Currency equivalent of 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. In Southeastern Shipping v. Navarra, Jr.,[14] this Court declared that in order to avail of death benefits, the death of the employee should occur during the effectivity of the employment contract. 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.[15] In the present case, Ildefonso died after he pre-terminated the contract of employment. That alone would have sufficed for his heirs not to be entitled for death compensation benefits. Furthermore, there is no evidence to show that Ildefonso's illness was acquired during the term of his employment with petitioners. The CA, in reversing the rulings of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC, stated that the fact that One Shipping hired Ildefonso despite a waiver and prior knowledge of his heart ailment behooves petitioners to accept liability for said death in the course of his employment is misguided. Granting that petitioners were made aware of Ildefonso's prior heart ailment, the fact still remains that he died after the effectivity of his contract. There is even no reason given why Ildefonso asked for a pre-termination of his contract which resulted in his repatriation. To surmise that he asked for the pretermination of his contract due to a medical condition is highly speculative and must not be considered as a fact. As found by the Labor Arbiter: In other words, there are no indications that Ildefonso was already suffering from an ailment at the time he pre-terminated his employment contract with petitioners. No proof was presented to substantiate complainant's claim that her husband suffered chest pain and difficulty in breathing. There was no report of any illness suffered by complainant's husband while on board the MV “ACX Magnolia”. Also, upon his arrival in the Philippines on May 21, elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/58917 7/9