5/28/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly US dollars (US$1,000) for burial expenses at the exchange rate prevailing during the time of payment.[24] Pursuant to the aforequoted provision, and a long line of jurisprudence[25] explaining the same, in order for the beneficiaries of a seafarer to be entitled to death compensation from the employer, it must be proven that the death of the seafarer (1) is work-related; and (2) occurred during the term of his contract. It is an oft-repeated rule that whoever claims entitlement to the benefits provided by law should establish his right thereto by no less than substantial evidence.[26] Substantial evidence is more than a mere scintilla. It must reach the level of relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as sufficient to support a conclusion.[27] The evidence must be real and substantial, and not merely apparent; for the duty to prove work-causation or work-aggravation imposed by law is real and not merely apparent.[28] As such, the burden to prove entitlement to death benefits lies on the petitioner.[29] A perusal of the records would reveal that petitioner failed to prove by substantial evidence that the death of her husband occurred during the term of his employment contract and that the cause of death was work-related. First, it is clear from the evidence presented that petitioner’s husband did not pass away during the term of his employment. His contract of employment with respondents expired on July 23, 2006 whereas his death occurred more than a year thereafter or on August 19, 2007. As the CA noted, even if it is said that his employment ceased upon his repatriation to the Philippines on August 17, 2006, the fact remains that his death took place long after the expiration of his employment.[30] Second, petitioner failed to adduce proof that the death of Dovee Yap was work-related. We have consistently ruled that unless there is substantial evidence showing that: (a) the cause of the seaman’s death was reasonably connected to his work; or (b) the sickness/ailment for which he died is an accepted occupational disease; or (c) his working conditions increased the risk of contracting the disease for which he died, death compensation benefits cannot be awarded.[31] To substantiate her claim for death compensation, petitioner presented the accident report of the vessel’s captain, the referral form of the Qatar Petroleum Medical Service Department indicating that an X-Ray was conducted on Dovee Yap, the medical report of the attending physician of Iloilo Medical Center containing an account of the tests conducted on him and their respective findings, the consultation report of the radiologist of Iloilo Doctor’s Hospital showing the condition of Yap’s spine, and his certificate of death, among others.[32] These documents, however, exhibit nothing more than Dovee Yap’s condition at the time the tests were conducted after his repatriation, the fact of his accidental slip on board the vessel and of his eventual death. Regrettably, explanations as to the causal correlation among them are lacking. While the evidence presented bear results of his “slightly enhancing hypointense elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/57408 7/14