E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly 12/19/21, 1:28 PM The petition is impressed with merit. In Medline Management, Inc. v. Roslinda,[23] we 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." In this case, there is no dispute that Vedasto went missing on August 2, 1994, during the effectivity of his employment contract. Thus, his beneficiaries are entitled to the death benefits under the POEA Standard Employment Contract for Seafarers, Section 20 of which states: SECTION 20. COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS A. COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS FOR DEATH In the 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 Thus, upon the death of Vedasto, his heirs, specifically Imelda and their four children, are entitled to US$50,000.00 as well as US$7,000.00 for each child under the age of 21. The status of Imelda and her four children as the legitimate beneficiaries of Vedasto was never questioned. The only issue raised by Korphil was the prescription of their claim. Korphil is estopped from asserting that the reckoning point for prescription to set in is August 2,1994. Preliminarily, it must be stressed that Korphil is estopped from asserting that Imelda's cause of action accrued on August 2, 1994. Korphil could not deny the fact that it is a party to another case filed by Gliceria P. Echavez (Gliceria), the mother of Vedasto. In this case, Gliceria claimed death benefits due to the death of her son Vedasto. In a Decision[24] dated October 15, 1997, Labor Arbiter Dominador A. Ahnirante ruled that the claim was prematurely filed and hence it must be dismissed without prejudice to the re-filing of the same at the right time. The case was refiled on August 26, 1998. In a decision[25] dated February 22, 1999, Labor Arbiter Almirante ruled that Korphil is liable for the payment of death benefits to Gliceria. Korphil appealed to the NLRC. On November 19, 1999, the NLRC rendered its Decision[26] which dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Labor Arbiter's Decision. Korphil filed with the CA a petition for certiorari[27] which was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 58933. In the said petition, Korphil advanced the following arguments: https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/37942 Page 5 of 10