6/5/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly Flor filed a Motion for Reconsideration, but it was denied by the National Labor Relations Commission in the Resolution dated December 30, 2010.[21] She then filed a Petition for Certiorari before the Court of Appeals, arguing that her husband died from a work-related illness, thus, it was grave abuse of discretion for the National Labor Relations Commission to reverse the Labor Arbiter’s ruling.[22] The Court of Appeals denied the petition, ruling that since Eduardo died after the term of his contract with Status Maritime Corporation, “his beneficiaries are not entitled to the death benefits[.]”[23] The Court of Appeals cited GSIS v. Valenciano[24] where this court held that “diabetes mellitus is not an occupational disease[.]”[25] The Court of Appeals also cited Section 32-A of the 2000 Philippine Overseas Employment Administration Amended Standard Terms and Conditions that does not list diabetes mellitus as an occupational disease. [26] Eduardo died after the term of his contract with Status Maritime Corporation. It was clear then that his beneficiaries were not entitled to death benefits.[27] In addition, the Court of Appeals held that Flor failed to substantiate her allegation that Eduardo’s illness and cause of death were work-related.[28] Decision states: A portion of the Court of Appeals Time and again, we have ruled that self-serving and unsubstantiated declarations are insufficient to establish a case before quasi-judicial bodies where the quantum of evidence required to establish a fact is substantial evidence. Often described as more than a mere scintilla, substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, even if other equally reasonable minds might conceivably opine otherwise. Thus, in the absence of substantial evidence, working conditions cannot be presumed to have increased the risk of contracting the disease. .... WHEREFORE, the premises considered, the Petition is hereby DENIED. The Decision dated 30 September 2010 of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) and its Resolution dated 30 December 2010 are AFFIRMED in toto. SO ORDERED.[29] (Citations omitted) Flor moved for the reconsideration[30] of the Court of Appeals Decision that was denied in the Resolution[31] dated December 12, 2013. Petitioner filed this Petition for Review on Certiorari, arguing that the Court of Appeals elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/59159 3/12