This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2009-07-15 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| The CA further explained that it is not necessary that there be proof of causal relation between the work and the illness which resulted in De Castro's disability. Citing GSIS v. Baul,[10] it held that in general, a covered claimant suffering from an occupational disease is automatically paid benefits. While it noted that the exact etiology of hypertension which led to De Castro's cardiovascular ailments cannot be accurately traced, it stressed that medical experiments tracing the etiology of essential hypertension show a relationship between this illness and the nature and conditions of work. The CA found significant the statement in De Castro's Certificate of Disability Discharge that his CAD and hypertensive cardiovascular diseases were aggravated during active service; were not incurred while on AWOL; did not exist prior to entry into service; were incident to service; were not incurred by private avocation; were not due to misconduct; and, were incurred while in line of duty. The appellate court, therefore, brushed aside the findings a quo that De Castro's illnesses might have been caused by his smoking and drinking habits. | |||||
|
2008-06-27 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| As a general rule, disability arising from an occupational disease listed in Annex "A" is considered compensable without need of further proof of causal relation between the disease and the claimant's work.[40] However, disability arising from a work-related disease which was added to Annex "A" by virtue of ECC Resolution No. 432 is considered compensable only upon evidence that said work-related disease manifested itself under specific conditions. | |||||
|
2008-06-27 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| The admission of the Certification into evidence and its application by the CA were therefore proper, especially since technical rules of evidence need not be strictly applied to employees' compensation cases.[53] | |||||
|
2008-04-30 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| The claimant must show, at least, by substantial evidence that the development of the disease was brought about largely by the conditions present in the nature of the job. What the law requires is a reasonable work connection and not a direct causal relation. It is enough that the hypothesis on which the workmen's claim is based is probable.[27] Probability, not the ultimate degree of certainty, is the test of proof in compensation proceedings.[28] And probability must be reasonable;[29] hence, it should, at least, be anchored on credible information. Moreover, a mere possibility will not suffice; a claim will fail if there is only a possibility that the employment caused the disease.[30] | |||||