This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2015-09-09 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| On the issue covering the pecuniary award, the Court finds the need to modify the award. Since respondent is entitled to a declaration of permanent total disability, the corresponding benefit attached thereto in the amount of US$60,000.00 should be given to him' This is in line with the Maersk pronouncement. Thus, on this score, both the NCMB and the CA patently erred. Besides, petitioners came to this Court arguing mainly that respondent should not be awarded indemnity because his illness is not work-connected and not compensable; alternatively, they contend that only the disability grading provided by the company-designated physician - that is, Dr. Cruz's January 21, 2008 recommendation of a Grade 12 disability rating - should be recognized.[36] Thus, apart from the issue of compensability, it became necessary for the Court to determine the degree of compensability; the facts further indicate that respondent's condition has not been resolved. The fact that respondent did not interpose a corresponding appeal is therefore of no moment. In any case, petitioner's "appeal, once accepted by this Court, throws the entire case open to review, and that this Court has the authority to review matters not specifically raised or assigned as error by the parties, if their consideration is necessary in arriving at a just resolution of the case."[37] | |||||
|
2015-04-20 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| Strict compliance with the rules of procedure in administrative cases is not required by law.[28] Administrative rules of procedure should be construed liberally in order to promote their object to assist the parties in obtaining a just, speedy and inexpensive determination of their respective claims and defenses.[29] | |||||