This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2008-10-17 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| It is of no moment that Masangcay passed his pre-employment medical examination. It is probable that the pre-employment medical examination conducted on him could not have divulged his illness for which he had been brought to the Fujairah Hospital in the United Arab Emirates, considering the fact that most, if not all, of such medical examinations are not so exploratory.[47] The decrease of GFR, which is an indicator of chronic renal failure, is measured thru the renal function test.[48] In pre-employment examination, the urine analysis (urinalysis), which is normally included, measures only the creatinine,[49] the presence of which cannot conclusively indicate chronic renal failure. | |||||
|
2006-09-27 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| In Sealanes Marine Services, Inc., v. NLRC,[55] this Court held that an employer is not liable for death compensation arising under the standard format contract if the death of the seaman was due to an illness that was not contracted during the term of his employment contract. | |||||
|
2006-04-12 |
PUNO, J. |
||||
| The unqualified phrase "during the term" in Section 20(B) of the 1996 POEA SEC covers all injury or illness occurring in the lifetime of the contract. The injury or illness need not be shown to be work-related. In Sealanes Marine Services, Inc. v. NLRC, [29] we categorically held: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] | |||||