This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2013-03-20 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| In so ruling, the CA affirmed the NLRC's determination that Inocencio's cancer of the tonsil, based on the certification of the company designated physician, Dr. Cruz, was not work-related. This determination, the CA observed, citing NYK-Fil Ship lvtanagement, Inc. v. Talavera,[14] was not rebutted by contrary findings. The CA also held that the mere allegations of Inocencio on the causal relation between his work and ailment are not substantial proof of such relation, and that the PEME before deployment did not render Inocencio's tonsil cancer work-related either, for the PEME is not considered exploratory enough to fully ascertain his health before deployment. However, the CA agreed with the NLRC and ruled that Transocean and General Marine must pay or reimburse Inocencio's medical expenses based on their offer and promise to shoulder the medical treatment, such as the '"chemotherapy of [Inocencio], costing [PhP] 500,000,"[15] pointing out that Inocencio, indeed, initially underwent some of the prescribed medical procedures until Transocean and General Marine unilaterally withdrew the payment of their obligation. | |||||
|
2012-04-16 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| In Seagull Maritime Corp. v. Dee,[29] however, a case involving an employment contract entered into in 1999 as in this case, we have held that resort to prognosis of other physicians may be allowed especially so if there are serious doubts on the evaluation made by the company-designated physician. The same ruling was applied in Abante v. KJGS Fleet Management Manila[30] in that the seafarer was given an option to seek a second opinion from his preferred physician notwithstanding the fact that it was the POEA Memorandum Circular No. 05-96 which governed the parties' contract of employment. Hence, "while it is the company-designated physician who must declare that the seaman suffers a permanent disability during employment, it does not deprive the seafarer of his right to seek a second opinion, hence the Contract recognizes the prerogative of the seafarer to request a second opinion and, for this purpose, to consult a physician of his choice."[31] | |||||
|
2009-12-04 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| Clearly, the above provision does not preclude the seafarer from getting a second opinion as to his condition for purposes of claiming disability benefits, for as held in NYK-Fil Ship Management v. Talavera::[9] | |||||
|
2009-07-15 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| Even if the postmaster's certification were to merit serious consideration by this Court, we cannot avoid the legal reality that the registry return card is considered as the official NLRC record evidencing service by mail.[15] This card carries the presumption that it was prepared in the course of official duties that have been regularly performed; in this sense, it is presumed to be accurate, unless proven otherwise,[16] and should be distinguished from a mere written record or note secured by a party to prove a self-serving point. This latter record or note, not being a regular record in the usual course of business, is open to easy fabrication and cannot be accepted and trusted at face value; as Valencia correctly noted, it was not even under oath nor under seal, aside from the fact that it does not mention the name of the Postmaster of the Malate Post Office. Thus, it does not carry the same level of evidentiary integrity that an official record enjoys, particularly when it seeks to impugn what the official record establishes.[17] As we stated in Mangahas v. Court of Appeals:[18] | |||||