This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2012-12-03 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| We are satisfied, from the discussions of the labor arbiter, the NLRC, and the CA, that substantial evidence on record exists to support their factual findings on this point. It is inconsequential that Serna's repatriation was due to a finished contract as an employee's claim cannot be defeated by the mere fact of his separation from the service.[33] | |||||
|
2009-03-17 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Years after Cordero contracted hypertension, her health condition worsened when she was hospitalized in April 2000, June 2001 and October 2001 and she was diagnosed as having End Stage Renal Disease secondary to Chronic Glomerulonephritis. Her attending physician certified that based on medical examinations, her hypertension has led to the development of her End Stage Renal Disease. In our jurisprudence, a doctor's certification as to the nature of the claimant's disability normally deserves full credence because in the normal course of things, no medical practitioner will issue certifications indiscriminately, considering the serious and far-reaching effects of false certifications and its implications upon his own interests as a professional.[25] | |||||
|
2008-11-14 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| The Court has applied the Labor Code concept of permanent total disability to the case of seafarers. In a catena of cases,[10] the Court declared that disability should not be understood more on its medical significance but on the loss of earning capacity. Permanent total disability means disablement of an employee to earn wages in the same kind of work, or work of similar nature that he was trained for or accustomed to perform, or any kind of work which a person of his mentality and attainment could do. In addition, the Court in GSIS v. Cadiz[11] and Ijares v. CA[12] held that permanent disability is the inability of a worker to perform his job for more than 120 days, regardless of whether or not he loses the use of any part of his body. | |||||
|
2007-10-19 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| While it is true that the medical certificate presented by respondent Ibarra is uncorroborated, it is equally true, that it is uncontroverted. Neither petitioner GSIS nor the ECC denies the genuineness or due execution of said medical certificate, except probably the disparaging remark of petitioner GSIS that it was issued by a "mere company physician." However, as we have held in many cases, a doctor's certification as to the nature of claimant's disability may be given credence, as he or she would normally not make an untruthful certification. No physician in his right mind and who is aware of the far-reaching and serious effect that his or her statements would cause on a money claim against a government agency would vouch for those statements indiscriminately, without regard for his own interests and protection.[18] | |||||
|
2006-04-12 |
PUNO, J. |
||||
| The same principles were cited in the more recent case of Crystal Shipping, Inc. v. Natividad.[44] In addition, the Court cited GSIS v. Cadiz[45] and Ijares v. CA[46] that "permanent disability is the inability of a worker to perform his job for more than 120 days, regardless of whether or not he loses the use of any part of his body." | |||||
|
2003-03-28 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| In Ijares v. Court of Appeals,[22] which involved a claim for disability benefits due to hypertension, this Court gave probative value to the medical findings of the examining physician. A doctor's certification as to the nature of the claimant's disability normally deserves full credence. No medical practitioner will, in the normal course of things, issue certifications indiscriminately, considering the doctor's awareness of the serious and far-reaching effects that a false certification would have on a claim filed with a government agency and of its implications upon his own interests as a professional.[23] | |||||