Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

LEONIS NAVIGATION CO. v. CATALINO U. VILLAMATER

This case has been cited 9 times or more.

	GR No. 198388 2014-07-28	JORAINA DRAGON TALOSIG v. UNITED PHILIPPINE LINES SERENO, C.J.
In this case, we agree with the CA that colon cancer is not one of those types of cancer that are compensable under Section 32 of the POEA Standard Employment Contract. We are aware that we previously ruled that death caused by colon cancer may be compensable. In Leonis Navigation Co. Inc. v. Villamater,[16] we ruled: It is true that under Section 32-A of the POEA Standard Contract, only two types of cancers are listed as occupational diseases (1) Cancer of the epithelial lining of the bladder (papilloma of the bladder); and (2) cancer, epithellematous or ulceration of the skin or of the corneal surface of the eye due to tar, pitch, bitumen, mineral oil or paraffin, or compound products or residues of these substances. Section 20 of the same Contract also states that those illnesses not listed under Section 32 are disputably presumed as work-related. Section 20 should, however, be read together with Section 32-A on the conditions to be satisfied for an illness to be compensable, to wit:
	GR No. 209302 2014-07-09	ALONE AMAR P. TAGLE v. ANGLO-EASTERN CREW MANAGEMENT MENDOZA, J.
While work-relatedness is indeed presumed,[41] the Court, in Leonis Navigation Co., Inc. v. Villamater,[42] explained that the legal presumption in Section 20(B)(4) of the POEA-SEC should be read together with the requirements specified by Section 32-A of the same contract, in that Section 20(B)(4) only affords a disputable presumption.
	GR No. 195598 2014-06-25	TEEKAY SHIPPING PHILIPPINES v. EXEQUIEL O. JARIN REYES, J.
The award of attorney's fees was correct as it finds legal justification in Article 2208(8)[52] allowing the grant thereof in actions for indemnity under workmen's compensation and employer's liability laws.[53]
	GR No. 200804 2014-01-22	A.L. ANG NETWORK v. EMMA MONDEJAR PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
In this relation, it may not be amiss to placate the RTC's apprehension that respondent's recourse before it (was only filed to circumvent the non-appealable nature of [small claims cases], because it asks [the court] to supplant the decision of the lower [c]ourt with another decision directing the private respondent to pay the petitioner a bigger sum than what has been awarded."[28] Verily, a petition for certiorari, unlike an appeal, is an original action[29] designed to correct only errors of jurisdiction and not of judgment. Owing to its nature, it is therefore incumbent upon petitioner to establish that jurisdictional errors tainted the MTCC Decision. The RTC, in turn, could either grant or dismiss the petition based on an evaluation of whether or not the MTCC gravely abused its discretion by capriciously, whimsically, or arbitrarily disregarding evidence that is material to the controversy.[30]
	GR No. 188595 2013-08-28	SEA POWER SHIPPING ENTERPRISES v. NENITA P. SALAZAR SERENO, C.J.
However, the CA failed to appreciate that Section 20(B)(4) only affords a disputable presumption. In Leonis Navigation Co., Inc. v. Villamater,[31] we explained that the legal presumption in Section 20(B)(4) should be read together with the requirements specified by Section 32-A of the POEA Contract.
	GR No. 202791 2013-06-10	PHILIPPINE TRANSMARINE CARRIERS v. LEANDRO LEGASPI MENDOZA, J.
Petitioner also argues that the Receipt of the Judgment Award with Undertaking, which was never refuted by respondent, clearly stated that the payment of the judgment award was without prejudice to its right to file a petition for certiorari with the CA. Petitioner asserts that the case relied upon by the CA, Career Philippines, is not applicable as it is not on all fours with this case. Instead, it asserts that the applicable case should be Leonis Navigation Co., Inc. v. Villamater,[9] where it was held that the satisfaction of the monetary award by the employer does not render the petition for certiorari moot before the CA.
	GR No. 185280 2012-01-18	TIMOTEO H. SARONA v. NLRC REYES, J.
In Leonis Navigation Co., Inc., et al. v. Villamater, et al.,[34] this Court ruled that the prevailing party's receipt of the full amount of the judgment award pursuant to a writ of execution issued by the labor arbiter does not close or terminate the case if such receipt is qualified as without prejudice to the outcome of the petition for certiorari pending with the CA.
	GR No. 169757 2011-11-23	CESAR C. LIRIO v. WILMER D. GENOVIA PERALTA, J.
Errors of judgment, as distinguished from errors of jurisdiction, are not within the province of a special civil action for certiorari, which is merely confined to issues of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion.[17] By grave abuse of discretion is meant such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction, and it must be shown that the discretion was exercised arbitrarily or despotically.[18]
	GR No. 182262 2011-04-13	ROMULO B. DELA ROSA v. MICHAELMAR PHILIPPINES NACHURA, J.
February 6, 2006, however, was a Sunday. Thus, Dela Rosa filed his petition the next working day, or on February 7, 2006. Undoubtedly, Dela Rosa's petition was timely filed. In Leonis Navigation Co., Inc. v. Villamater,[22] we explained: [J]udicial review of decisions of the NLRC is sought via a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, and the petition should be filed before the CA, following the strict observance of the hierarchy of courts. Under Rule 65, Section 4, petitioners are