5/28/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly injury or illness which eventually causes his death should have occurred during the term of his employment. Taking all things into account, the Court reckons that it is by this method of construction that undue prejudice to the laborer and his heirs may be obviated and the State policy on labor protection be championed. For if the laborer’s death was brought about (whether fully or partially) by the work he had harbored for his master’s profit, then it is but proper that his demise be compensated.”[77] Lest it be misunderstood, the conclusion above-reached does not run counter to the Court’s ruling in Klaveness Maritime Agency, Inc. v. Beneficiaries of the Late Second Officer Anthony s. Allas (Klaveness),[78] which the CA inaccurately relied on. As similarly pointed out in Canuel, the Klaveness case involved a seafarer who was not medically repatriated but was actually signed off from the vessel after the completion of his contract, his illness not proven to be work-related, and died almost two (2) years after the termination of his contract. Since the employment contract was terminated without any connection to a work-related cause, but rather because of its mere lapse, death benefits were denied to the seafarer’s heirs.[79] This is definitely not the case here since Rodolfo’s employment contract was terminated only because of his medical repatriation. Were it not for his illness, Rodolfo would not have been medically repatriated and his employment contract, in turn, terminated. Evidently, the termination of employment was forced upon by a work-related cause and it would be in contrast to the State’s policy on labor to deprive the seafarer’s heirs of death compensation despite its ascertained work-connection.[80] This variance also exists as to the cases of Gau Sheng,[81] Spouses Aya-ay, Sr.,[82] Prudential,[83] and Ortega,[84] which respondents invoke in their Comment dated February 16, 2012.[85] As a common denominator, the element of work-relatedness was not established in those cases. Thus, being the primary factor considered in granting compensation, the Court denied the beneficiaries’ respective claims. Again, the Court has pored over the records and remains satisfied that Rodolfo’s death is workrelated. Accordingly, this precludes the application of the above-stated rulings. III. Amount of Death Benefits. With the compensability of Rodolfo’s death now traversed, a corollary matter to determine is the amount of benefits due petitioner. Records show that respondents do not deny – and therefore admit – the late Rodolfo’s membership in the AMOSUP that had entered into a collective bargaining agreement with HAL, or the ITWF-CBA.[86] Its provisions therefore must prevail over the standard terms and benefits formulated by the POEA in its Standard Employment Contract.[87] Hence, the NLRC’s award of US$60,000.00 as compensation for the death of Rodolfo in accordance with Article 21.2.1[88] of the ITWF-CBA was in order. The same holds true for the award of burial assistance in the amount of US$1,000.00 which is provided under Section 20 (A) (4) (c)[89] of the 2000 POEA-SEC. Moreover, elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/58338 11/18