This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2014-07-18 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| The findings of fact of the SSS are supported by substantial evidence and affirmed by the ECC and the Court of Appeals. This Court is not a trier of facts. The Court accords great weight to the factual findings of lower courts or agencies whose function is to resolve factual matters. It is not for the Court to weigh evidence all over again. Moreover, findings of fact of administrative agencies and quasi-judicial bodies, which have acquired expertise because their jurisdiction is confined to specific matters, are generally accorded not only respect but finality when affirmed by the Court of Appeals.[19] | |||||
|
2014-07-09 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Verily, the grant of total and permanent disability is not automatically awarded simply because a seafarer suffered an injury or contracted an illness after initially passing his PEME. Awards of compensation cannot rest on speculations or presumptions, for the claimant must prove a positive proposition.[46] In this case, the burden is placed upon petitioner to present by substantial evidence, or such relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as sufficient to support a conclusion, to prove causation between the nature of his employment and his illness, or that the risk of contracting the illness was increased by his working condition. [47] In short, the onus probandi falls on petitioner to establish or substantiate his claim that he is entitled to disability benefits by the requisite quantum of evidence.[48] | |||||