This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2012-12-05 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Undoubtedly also applicable to the POEA-SEC, it is a cardinal rule in the interpretation of contracts that if the terms of a contract are clear and leave no doubt upon the intention of the contracting parties, the literal meaning of its stipulation shall control.[40] Considering that Calawigan was only diagnosed to be suffering from "moderate bilateral sensorineural hearing loss," LISI correctly argues that the CA erred in giving credence to Dr. Mendiola's assessment of a Grade 3 disability rating which corresponds to complete loss of hearing on both ears. Absent a finding that the "ossicular disarticulation" detected on Calawigan's right ear amounts to a complete loss of the sense of hearing in one ear, it would also appear that said seafarer is not even entitled to compensation for a Grade 11 disability rating. Granted that strict rules of evidence are not applicable in claims therefor,[41] compensation and disability benefits under the POEA-SEC cannot be awarded to ailment or injuries not falling within its purview. | |||||
|
2010-10-18 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Even in case of death of a seafarer, the grant of benefits in favor of the heirs of the deceased is not automatic. As in the case of Rivera v. Wallem Maritime Services, Inc.,[25] without a post-medical examination or its equivalent to show that the disease for which the seaman died was contracted during his employment or that his working conditions increased the risk of contracting the ailment, the employer/s cannot be made liable for death compensation. | |||||
|
2010-06-29 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| For disability claims, the post-employment medical examination is meant to verify the medical condition of the seafarer when he signs off from the vessel.[25] On the other hand, in the cases involving death compensation, our rulings in Gau Sheng Phils., Inc. v. Joaquin[26] and Rivera v. Wallem Maritime Services, Inc.[27] stressed the importance of a post-employment medical examination or its equivalent, i.e., it is a basis for the award of death compensation. In these cited cases, however, death benefits were not awarded because the seafarers and/or their representatives failed to abide by the POEA-SEC wherein it was stated that the seafarer must report to his employer for a post-employment medical examination within three working days from the date of arrival, otherwise, benefits under the POEA-SEC would be nullified.[28] | |||||
|
2010-03-15 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| In Rivera v. Wallem Maritime Services, Inc.,[35] this Court again highlighted the importance of the requirement regarding mandatory reporting when it denied therein petitioner's claim for disability benefits for failure to undergo mandatory post-employment medical examination. This Court held: In this case, it is not disputed that Rodolfo failed to submit himself to the mandatory post-employment medical examination. The respondent manning agency found out about his confinement only through the petitioner, who asked for assistance in claiming her husband's retirement benefits. Indeed, while compliance with the reporting requirement under the Standard Employment Contract can be dispensed with, there must likewise be basis for the award of death compensation. Without a post-medical examination or its equivalent to show that the disease for which the seaman died was contracted during his employment or that his working conditions increased the risk of contracting the ailment, the respondents cannot be made liable for death compensation.[36] | |||||
|
2008-06-13 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| In their Memorandum[22] and Supplemental Memorandum,[23] petitioners insist that the more binding interpretation on the provisions of the POEA-SEC was that rendered by the Court in German Marine, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission; [24] and, more recently, Rivera v. Wallem[25] and Sarocam v. Interorient Maritime Ent., Inc.[26] -- which interpretation, petitioner claims, "support[s their] contention that under the pertinent POEA Contract applicable at the time respondent's cause of action accrued, it is only the company-designated physician who has the sole and exclusive right to determine and assess whether a seafarer is entitled to disability benefits or not."[27] To their mind, no other medical assessment of the claimant should be allowed, much less one rendered by a physician of the ECC, as said agency is without jurisdiction over disability claims filed under the POEA-SEC.[28] | |||||