Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PHILIMARE v. BENEDICTO F. SUGANOB

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 172393 2010-10-20	BANK OF COMMERCE v. ESTELA PERLAS-BERNABE PERALTA, J.
Elemental is the rule of procedure that the nature of a pleading is to be determined by the averments in it and not by its title.[43] Hence, while petitioner's Motion (to Recall the April 19, 2000 Order) was so denominated, it is not difficult to see that the remedy it was seeking was actually a reconsideration of the dismissal of the Receivership Case. This Motion, to reiterate, does not appear to have been acted upon by the hearing officer at any time during the interim that the subject order was issued and the two cases were eventually transferred to Branches 138 and 142 of the RTC of Makati. In particular, when the Receivership Case was transferred to Branch 138, petitioner's Motion to Recall was still a pending incident in the case. With the transfer of the records to the said court, the accompanying duty to resolve the motion likewise had devolved on the said court. In other words, contrary to the findings of the Court of Appeals, the Receivership Case has not yet attained finality, as indeed the motion seeking reconsideration of its dismissal had not been acted upon by the hearing officer himself and had not yet, in fact, been acted upon by Branch 138 of the RTC of Makati.
	GR No. 186289 2010-06-29	ORIENTAL SHIPMANAGEMENT CO. v. ROMY B. BASTOL VELASCO JR., J.
It has been held that disability is intimately related to one's earning capacity.[72] It should be understood less on its medical significance but more on the loss of earning capacity.[73] Total disability does not mean absolute helplessness.[74] In disability compensation, it is not the injury which is compensated, but rather the incapacity to work resulting in the impairment of one's earning capacity.[75] Thus, permanent disability is the inability of a worker to perform his job for more than 120 days, regardless of whether or not he loses the use of any part of his body.[76] This is the case of Bastol, aptly held by the CA.
	GR No. 179868 2010-01-21	RIZALDY M. QUITORIANO v. JEBSENS MARITIME CARPIO MORALES, J.
In accordance with the avowed policy of the State to give maximum aid and full protection to labor, the Court has applied the Labor Code concept of permanent total disability to Filipino seafarers,[19] it holding that the notion of disability is intimately related to the worker's capacity to earn, what is compensated being not his injury or illness but his inability to work resulting in the impairment of his earning capacity; hence, disability should be understood less on its medical significance but more on the loss of earning capacity.[20]
	GR No. 183908 2009-12-04	JOELSON O. ILORETA v. PHILIPPINE TRANSMARINE CARRIERS CARPIO MORALES, J.
The Court has applied the Labor Code concept of permanent total disability to Filipino seafarers in keeping with the avowed policy of the State to give maximum aid and full protection to labor,[19] it holding that the notion of disability is intimately related to the worker's capacity to earn, what is compensated being not his injury or illness but his inability to work resulting in the impairment of his earning capacity, hence, disability should be understood less on its medical significance but more on the loss of earning capacity.[20]
	GR No. 163838 2008-09-25	WALLEM MARITIME SERVICES AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
The foregoing concept of permanent disability has been consistently employed by the Court in subsequent cases involving seafarers, such as in Crystal Shipping, Inc. v. Natividad, in which it was reiterated that permanent disability means the inability of a worker to perform his job for more than 120 days.[31] Also in Philmare, Inc. v. Suganob,[32] notwithstanding the opinion of the company-designated physician that the seafarer therein was fit to work provided he regularly took his medication, the Court held that the latter suffered from permanent disability in view of evidence that he had been unable to work as chief cook for more than 7 months. Similarly, in Micronesia Resources v. Cantomayor[33] and United Philippine Lines, Inc. and/or Holland America Line, Inc. v. Beseril,[34] the Court declared the seafarers therein to have suffered from a permanent disability after taking evidence into account that they had remained under treatment for more than 120 days, and were unable to work for the same period.