Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

This case has been cited 2 times or more.

	GR NO. 159606 2005-12-13	MARILYN BUNAO v. SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Unfortunately, such bare allegations and vague excerpts on cancer do not constitute such evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion that there is indeed a causal relationship between the illness of the deceased and his working conditions. Awards of compensation cannot rest on speculations and presumptions.[13] The claimant must prove a positive proposition.[14] As ruled in Sante v. Employees' Compensation Commission: [15]
	GR No. 158846 2004-06-03	GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM v. TEODOSIO CUANANG YNARES-SATIAGO, J.
The first law on workmen's compensation in the Philippines was Act No. 3428, otherwise known as the Workmen's Compensation Act, which took effect on June 10, 1928. This Act works upon the presumption of compensability which means that if the injury or disease arose out of and in the course of employment, it is presumed that the claim for compensation falls within the provisions of the law. Simply put, the employee need not present any proof of causation. It is the employer who should prove that the illness or injury did not arise out of or in the course of employment.[21]