This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2015-06-17 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
| As a final note, it must be stressed that while the Court adheres to the principle of liberality in favor of the seafarer, it cannot allow claims for compensation based on whims and caprices. When the evidence presented negates compensability, the claim must fail, lest it causes injustice to the employer.[57] | |||||
|
2014-11-12 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
| In fine, given that Hipe's permanent disability was not established through substantial evidence for the reasons above-stated, the NLRC did not gravely abuse its discretion in dismissing the complaint for permanent disability benefits, thereby warranting the reversal of the CA's contrary ruling. Verily, while the Court adheres to the principle of liberality in favor of the seafarer in construing the POEA-SEC, when the evidence presented then negates compensability, the claim for disability benefits must necessarily fail,[75] as in this case. | |||||
|
2014-02-26 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
| Maritime's subsequent hiring of Ayungo, despite knowledge of his Diabetes Mellitus, did not make them guarantors of his health nor did it warrant outright compensation in favor of Ayungo.[43] Indeed, despite the pre-existing nature of his Diabetes Mellitus and the concomitant disputable presumption that it is work-related,[44] Ayungo still had the burden to prove the causal link between his Diabetes Mellitus and his duties as Chief Engineer. As pronounced in Quizora v. Denholm Crew Management (Philippines), Inc.:[45] At any rate, granting that the provisions of the 2000 POEA-SEC apply, the disputable presumption provision in Section 20 (B) does not allow him to just sit down and wait for respondent company to present evidence to overcome the disputable presumption of work-relatedness of | |||||