Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

MARILYN BUNAO v. SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 168715 2010-09-15	MEDLINE MANAGEMENT v. S DEL CASTILLO, J.
"It is an accepted precept of procedural law that the Court may resolve the dispute in a single proceeding, instead of remanding the case to the lower court for further proceedings if, based on the records, pleadings, and other evidence, the matter can readily be ruled upon."[23] Instead of remanding the case to the Labor Arbiter for further proceedings, we will resolve the dispute to serve the ends of justice.
	GR No. 180551 2009-02-10	ERWIN H. REYES v. VS.NLRC CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
This Court is aware that in the instant case, since petitioner's appeal before the Court of Appeals is to be given due course, the normal procedure is for us to remand the case to the appellate court for further proceedings. The Court, however, dispensed with this time-consuming procedure, since there is enough basis on which proper evaluation of the merits of the case may be had. Remand of this case would serve no purpose save to further delay its disposition contrary to the spirit of fair play. It is already an accepted rule of procedure for us to strive to settle the entire controversy in a single proceeding, leaving no root or branch to bear the seed of future litigation.[15]
	GR NO. 170743 2007-04-12	GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM v. LUCITA R. VILLAREAL CORONA, J.
Under PD 626, the beneficiaries of an employee are entitled to death benefits under the system if the cause of death of the employee is a sickness listed as an occupational disease by the ECC or any other illness caused by employment, subject to proof that the risk of contracting the same is increased by the working conditions.[10]
	GR NO. 164195 2007-02-06	APO FRUITS CORPORATION v. CA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
It is already an accepted rule of procedure for us to strive to settle the entire controversy in a single proceeding,[56] leaving no root or branch to bear the seeds of future litigation. If, based on the records, the pleadings, and other evidence, the dispute can be resolved by us, we will do so to serve the ends of justice instead of remanding the case to the lower court for further proceedings.[57]
	GR NO. 154386 2006-08-22	GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Breast cancer is not listed as an occupational disease under Annex "A". Such being the case, it was necessary for respondent to prove by substantial evidence the causal relationship between his wife's illness and her working conditions. Substantial evidence means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.[6] Thus, respondent must submit proof as would constitute a reasonable basis for concluding either that the conditions of his wife's employment caused the cancer or that such working conditions had aggravated the risk of contracting that ailment.[7]