Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

MEDLINE MANAGEMENT v. S

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 183212 2015-03-16	WALLEM PHILIPPINES SERVICES v. HEIRS OF LATE PETER PADRONES PERALTA, J.
Thus, it is clear that for the death of a seafarer to be compensable, the same must occur during the term of his contract of employment.[20] If the seaman dies after the termination of his contract, his beneficiaries are not entitled to death benefits.[21] In the instant case, Padrones' employment contract ended on November 23, 1999. He died on April 25, 2001, more than one (1) year and five (5) months from the time his employment contract expired. It, therefore, follows that respondents, who are the beneficiaries of Padrones, are not entitled to death benefits.
	GR No. 198342 2014-08-13	REMEDIOS O. YAP v. ROVER MARITIME SERVICES CORPORATION PERALTA, J.
Pursuant to the aforequoted provision, and a long line of jurisprudence[25] explaining the same, in order for the beneficiaries of a seafarer to be entitled to death compensation from the employer, it must be proven that the death of the seafarer (1) is work-related; and (2) occurred during the term of his contract.
	GR Nos. 178034 & 178117 2013-10-17	ANDREW JAMES MCBURNIE v. EULALIO GANZON REYES, J.
Given these circumstances, it would be a circuitous exercise for the Court to remand the case to the NLRC, more so in the absence of any showing that the NLRC should now rule differently on the case's merits. In Medline Management, Inc. v. Roslinda,[127] the Court ruled that when there is enough basis on which the Court may render a proper evaluation of the merits of the case, the Court may dispense with the time-consuming procedure of remanding a case to a labor tribunal in order "to prevent delays in the disposition of the case," "to serve the ends of justice" and when a remand "would serve no purpose save to further delay its disposition contrary to the spirit of fair play."[128] In Real v. Sangu Philippines, Inc.,[129] we again ruled: With the foregoing, it is clear that the CA erred in affirming the decision of the NLRC which dismissed petitioner's complaint for lack of jurisdiction. In cases such as this, the Court normally remands the case to the NLRC and directs it to properly dispose of the case on the merits. "However, when there is enough basis on which a proper evaluation of the merits of petitioner's case may be had, the Court may dispense with the time-consuming procedure of remand in order to prevent further delays in the disposition of the case." "It is already an accepted rule of procedure for us to strive to settle the entire controversy in a single proceeding, leaving no root or branch to bear the seeds of litigation. If, based on the records, the pleadings, and other evidence, the dispute can be resolved by us, we will do so to serve the ends of justice instead of remanding the case to the lower court for further proceedings." x x x.[130] (Citations omitted)
	GR No. 188595 2013-08-28	SEA POWER SHIPPING ENTERPRISES v. NENITA P. SALAZAR SERENO, C.J.
Section 20(A) of the POEA Contract, and a long line of jurisprudence explaining the provision,[29] require that for respondent to be entitled to death benefits, Armando must have suffered a work-related death during the term of his contract. The provision reads:SECTION 20. COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS
	GR No. 169575 2011-03-30	IMELDA PANTOLLANO v. KORPHIL SHIPMANAGEMENT DEL CASTILLO, J.
In Medline Management, Inc. v. Roslinda,[23] we declared that "in order to avail of death benefits, the death of the employee should occur during the effectivity of the employment contract. The death of a seaman during the term of employment makes the employer liable to his heirs for death compensation benefits. Once it is established that the seaman died during the effectivity of his employment contract, the employer is liable."