Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PETRITA Y. BONILLA v. CA

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR NO. 167572 2007-07-27	GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM v. MELVIN I. PALMA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
This increased risk theory can be made applicable in compensation cases, when the claimant can adduce reasonable proof of the connection between his work and the cause of the disease, or that that the risk of contracting the disease was increased by the claimant's working conditions.[6] Strict rules of evidence are not applicable to claims for compensation.[7] The degree of proof required under Presidential Decree No. 626 is merely substantial evidence, which means "such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion."[8] What the law requires is a reasonable work-connection and not a direct causal relation.[9] Medical opinion to the contrary can be disregarded, especially where there is some basis in the facts for inferring a work connection.[10] It is sufficient that the hypothesis on which the workmen's claim is based is probable since probability, not certainty, is the touchstone.[11]
	GR NO. 154386 2006-08-22	GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 626, as amended, defines compensable sickness as "any illness definitely accepted as an occupational disease listed by the Commission, or any illness caused by employment subject to proof by the employee that the risk of contracting the same is increased by the working conditions." Under Section 1 (b), Rule III, of the Rules Implementing P. D. No. 626, as amended, for the sickness and the resulting disability or death to be compensable, the same must be an "occupational disease" included in the list provided (Annex "A"), with the conditions set therein satisfied; otherwise, the claimant must show proof that the risk of contracting it is increased by the working conditions.[5]
	GR NO. 158268 2006-04-12	RHODA CASTOR-GARUPA v. EMPLOYEES' COMPENSATION COMMISSION CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
For the increased risk theory to apply in compensation cases, the claimant must adduce reasonable proof between his work and the cause of the disease, or that the risk of contracting the disease was increased by the claimant's working conditions.[23] Strict rules of evidence are not applicable in claims for compensation.[24] The degree of proof required under Presidential Decree No. 626 is merely substantial evidence, which means "such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." What the law requires is a reasonable work-connection and not a direct causal relation.[25] It is sufficient that the hypothesis on which the workmen's claim is based is probable since probability, not certainty, is the touchstone.[26]
	GR NO. 151893 2005-10-20	PRECY P. JACANG v. EMPLOYEES' COMPENSATION COMMISSION QUISUMBING, J.
"Takayasu's Disease" is not listed as an occupational disease. But it is scientifically linked to PTB,[18] a listed occupational disease. While claimant must adduce substantial evidence that the risk of contracting the illness is increased by the working conditions to which an employee is exposed to, we cannot close our eyes to any reasonable work-related connection of the worker's ailment and his employment.[19]