Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

This case has been cited 2 times or more.

	GR No. 186509 2013-07-29	PHILMAN MARINE AGENCY v. ARMANDO S. CABANBAN BRION, J.
In Escarcha v. Leonis Navigation Co., Inc.,[57] we brushed aside the seafarer's claim that he acquired his illness during his employment simply because he passed the PEME. There, we held that "a PEME x x x is generally not exploratory in nature, nor is it a totally in-depth and thorough examination of an applicant's medical condition. x x x [I]t does not reveal the real state of health of an applicant"[58] In this case, considering that the PEME is not exploratory, its failure to reveal or uncover Armando's hypertension cannot therefore shield him from the consequences of his willful concealment of this information and preclude the petitioners from denying his claim on the ground of concealment.
	GR No. 191563 2012-06-20	LEGAL HEIRS OF LATE EDWIN B. DEAUNA v. FIL-STAR MARITIME CORPORATION REYES, J.
In Escarcha v. Leonis Navigation Co., Inc.,[29] the heirs of a deceased seafarer were ordered to return the amount paid to them pursuant to the execution of an award favorable to them but which was subsequently reversed by the Court. In Edwin's case, equity dictates that the proper reimbursement be effected as well by the petitioners.