This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2010-06-29 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| On September 26, 2007, the CA decided in favor of respondent, finding that the nature of Lutero's employment contributed to the aggravation of his illness. Invoking our rulings in Seagull Shipmanagement and Transport, Inc. v. NLRC[14] and Wallem Maritime Services, Inc. v. NLRC,[15] the CA disposed of the case in this wise: | |||||
|
2008-04-30 |
TINGA, J, |
||||
| For its part, petitioner merely claims that Ortega's exposure to smoke and fumes emitted by the vessel caused the development of pneumonia, which in turn aggravated or modified his lung cancer.[22] In addition, petitioner invokes the cases of Wallem Maritime Services, Inc. v. NLRC[23] and Seagull Shipmanagement v. NLRC,[24] to support its claim of compensability. | |||||
|
2008-04-14 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| We agree in the Court of Appeals' finding that petitioners' case does not fall under any of the recognized exceptions to the filing of a motion for reconsideration, to wit: (1) when the issue raised is purely of law; (2) when public interest is involved; (3) in case of urgency;[17] or when the questions raised are the same as those that have already been squarely argued and exhaustively passed upon by the lower court.[18] As the Court of Appeals reasoned, the issue before the NLRC is both factual and legal at the same time, involving as it does the requirements of the property bond for the perfection of the appeal, as well as the finding that petitioners failed to perfect the same. Evidently, the burden is on petitioners seeking exception to the rule to show sufficient justification for dispensing with the requirement.[19] Certiorari cannot be resorted to as a shield from the adverse consequences of petitioners' own omission of the filing of the required motion for reconsideration.[20] | |||||
|
2006-09-19 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| In the present case, the petitioners not only failed to explain their failure to file a motion for reconsideration before the RTC, they also failed to show sufficient justification for dispensing with the requirement. A motion for reconsideration is not only expected to be but would actually have provided an adequate and more speedy remedy than the petition for certiorari.[56] Certiorari cannot be resorted to as a shield from the adverse consequences of petitioners' own omission to file the required motion for reconsideration.[57] | |||||
|
2006-04-12 |
PUNO, J. |
||||
| The argument of petitioners that since cancer of the pancreas is not an occupational disease it was incumbent upon Capt. Arante to prove that his working conditions increased the risk of contracting the same, is not meritorious. It must be noted that his claims arose from the stipulations of the standard format contract entered into between him and SEACORP which, per Circular No. 2, Series of 1984[30] of respondent POEA was required to be adopted and used by all parties to the employment of any Filipino seamen (sic) on board any ocean-going vessel. His claims are not rooted from the provisions of the New Labor Code as amended. Significantly, under the contract, compensability of the death or illness of seam[e]n need not be dependent upon whether it is work connected or not. Therefore, proof that the working conditions increased the risk of contracting a disease or illness, is not required to entitle a seaman who dies during the term thereof by reason of such disease or illness, of the benefits stipulated thereunder which are, under Section C(2) of the same Circular No. 2, separate and distinct from, and in addition to whatever benefits which the seaman is entitled to under Philippine laws. (emphasis supplied) This principle was reiterated in the recent case of Seagull Shipmanagement and Transport, Inc. v. NLRC.[31] | |||||