Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

FIL-STAR MARITIME CORPORATION v. HANZIEL O. ROSETE

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 198408 2014-11-12	CONCHITA J. RACELIS v. UNITED PHILIPPINE LINES PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
And in Fil-Star Maritime Corporation v. Rosete:[58]
	GR No. 204076 2013-12-04	JEBSENS MARITIME v. ELENO A. BABOL MENDOZA, J.
In this case, it is undisputed that NPC afflicted respondent while on board the petitioners' vessel. As a non-occupational disease, it has the disputable presumption of being work-related. This presumption obviously works in the seafarer's favor.[16] Hence, unless contrary evidence is presented by the employers, the work-relatedness of the disease must be sustained.[17]
	GR No. 200837 2013-06-05	MAERSK FILIPINAS CREWING INC. v. NELSON E. MESINA REYES, J.
At any rate, even in the absence of an official finding by the company-designated physician or the respondent's own physician, he is deemed to have suffered permanent total disability pursuant to the following guidelines in Fil-Star Maritime Corporation v. Rosete, [45] thus: Permanent disability is inability of a worker to perform his job for more than 120 days, regardless of whether or not he loses the use of any part of his body.
	GR No. 195518 2013-03-20	MAGSAYSAY MARITIME SERVICES v. EARLWIN MEINRAD ANTERO F. LAUREL MENDOZA, J.
The POEA-SEC, as provided under Department Order No. 4, series of 2000 of the Department of Labor and Employment, which contains the Standard Terms and Conditions Governing The Employment of Filipino Seafarers On-Board Ocean-Going Vessels, governs the employment contract between Laurel and the petitioners. POEA came out with it pursuant to its mandate under Executive Order (E.O.) No. 247[23] to "secure the best terms and conditions of employment of Filipino contract workers and ensure compliance therewith" and to "promote and protect the well-being of Filipino workers overseas."[24] Section 20-B of the POEA-SEC enumerates the duties of an employer to his employee who suffers work-related disease or injury during the term of his employment contract, to quote: Section 20 (B)
	GR No. 195518 2013-03-20	MAGSAYSAY MARITIME SERVICES v. EARLWIN MEINRAD ANTERO F. LAUREL MENDOZA, J.
Although the employer is not the insurer of the health of his employees, he takes them as he finds them and assumes the risk of liability.[43] The quantum of evidence required in labor cases to determine the liability of an employer for the illness suffered by an employee under the POEA-SEC is not proof beyond reasonable doubt but mere substantial evidence or "such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion."[44] In this case, the Court finds that the decisions of both the NLRC and the CA that Laurel's illness was compensable were supported by substantial evidence.