5/28/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly that Rodolfo’s illness is disputably presumed to be work-related and that since it supervened in the course of his employment, the burden is on the respondents to prove otherwise.[32] It held that the medical opinion of the company-designated physician, which showed that Rodolfo’s ailment is not work-connected and may have pre-existed, is insufficient to rebut the presumption of compensability.[33] It likewise pointed out that the occurrence of death after the term of the contract was immaterial since the proximate cause of Rodolfo’s death was the illness that supervened during his employment.[34] Finally, the NLRC sustained the award of attorney’s fees as petitioner was compelled to litigate to protect her rights and interests.[35] Dissatisfied, respondents filed a motion for reconsideration[36] which was denied by the NLRC in a Resolution[37] dated March 11, 2010; hence, they elevated the matter to the CA via a petition for certiorari.[38] Meanwhile, petitioner moved for the execution of the affirmed LA Decision, which was granted by the NLRC.[39] In consequence, respondents paid petitioner the amount of P3,031,683.00[40] as full and complete satisfaction of the said NLRC Decision, without prejudice to the outcome of the certiorari case before the CA.[41] The CA Ruling In a Decision[42] dated March 28, 2011, the CA granted respondents’ certiorari petition, and thereby annulled and set aside the ruling of the NLRC granting petitioner’s claim for death benefits. It held that Rodolfo’s death on March 2, 2008 did not occur while he was in the employ of respondents, as his contract of employment ceased when he was medically repatriated on February 20, 2008 pursuant to Section 18 (B) (1) of the 2000 POEASEC.[43] Moreover, it observed that Rodolfo’s illness cannot be presumed to be workrelated, absent any proof to show that his death was connected to his work or that his working conditions increased the risk of contracting Brainstem (pontine) Cavernous Malformation that eventually caused his death.[44] Aggrieved, petitioner sought for reconsideration[45] but was denied in a Resolution[46] dated August 26, 2011, hence, the instant petition. The Issue Before the Court The essential issue for the Court’s resolution is whether or not the CA erred in annulling the NLRC’s grant of death benefits to petitioner on certiorari. The Court’s Ruling Deemed incorporated in every seafarer’s employment contract, denominated as the POEA-SEC or the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration-Standard Employment Contract, is a set of standard provisions determined and implemented by elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/58338 3/18