This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2013-10-02 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| As correctly pointed out by the ECC, the coverage of leukemia as an occupational disease relates to one's employment as an operating room personnel ordinarily exposed to anesthetics. In the case of petitioner's wife, the nature of her occupation does not indicate exposure to anesthetics nor does it increase the risk of developing Chronic Myelogenous Leukemia. There was no showing that her work involved frequent and sufficient exposure to substances established as occupational risk factors of the disease.[10] Thus, the need for the petitioner to sufficently establish that his wife's job as a teacher exposed her to substances similar to anesthetics in an environment similar to an "operating room." [11] This leans on the precept that the awards for compensation cannot rest on speculations and presumptions.[12] | |||||
|
2008-01-01 |
AZCUNA, J. |
||||
| After a careful examination of the records of the instant claim, we concur with the decision of the respondent system that appellant's claim is bereft of merit. Definitely, the ailment of herein appellant is not included in the list of occupational diseases, under the rules implementing PD 626, as amended. However, even if appellant's ailment is not an occupational disease, the present law on compensation allows certain diseases to be compensable if it is sufficiently proven that the risk of contract it is increased by the working conditions. Unfortunately, for Abraham Cate, he failed to present proofs that will establish that the development of his ailment is traceable to his work and working conditions as a soldier of the defunct Philippine Constabulary and later as member of the Philippine National Police.[10] In this case, Osteosarcoma is not listed as an occupational disease in the Amended Rules on Employees' Compensation. Hence, it is supposed to be upon the claimant or private respondents to prove by substantial evidence that the risk of contracting Osteosarcoma was increased by the working conditions of the late Abraham. Substantial evidence means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.[11] The records show that Abraham failed to present evidence to establish that the development of his ailment was traceable to his working conditions in the Philippine Navy, the now defunct Philippine Constabulary and the PNP. Further, private respondents' allegation in their petition for review with the CA that Abraham, as a rifleman in the Philippine Navy, may have been exposed to elements like a virus which could have contributed to his ailment does not satisfy the requirement of substantial evidence. The rule is that awards of compensation cannot rest on speculations and presumptions as the claimant must prove a positive thing.[12] The application of the rules would mean that absent any proof that the risk of contracting the ailment was increased by the working conditions of the late Abraham, private respondents would not be entitled to compensation. | |||||
|
2006-08-07 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| In sum, we annul and set aside the January 11, 2000 and May 23, 2001 Resolutions of the Court of Appeals. There is no more obstacle then to the petition for certiorari taking its course. However, rather than remand it to the Court of Appeals for resolution, we resolve it here and now to expedite matters.[35] | |||||