This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2015-06-22 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| In labor cases, as in all cases which require the presentation and weighing of evidence, the basic rule is that the burden of evidence lies with the party who asserts the affirmative of an issue.[47] In particular, in a case of claims for disability benefits, the onus probandi falls on the seafarer as claimant to establish his claim with the right quantum of evidence; it cannot rest on speculations, presumptions or conjectures.[48] Such party has the burden of proving the said assertion with the quantum of evidence required by law which, in a case such as this of a claim for disability benefits arising from one's employment as a seafarer, is substantial evidence.[49] Substantial evidence is not one that establishes certainty beyond reasonable doubt, but only "such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion," even if other minds, equally reasonable, might conceivably opine otherwise.[50] It is more than a mere scintilla of evidence.[51] | |||||
|
2014-07-30 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| At the very least, these general statements surmise mere possibilities but not the probability required by law for disability compensation. Mere possibility will not suffice and a claim will still fail if there is only a possibility that the employment caused or aggravated the disease.[43] Even considering that the respondents have shown probability, their basis is, nonetheless incompetent for being uncorroborated. Probability of work-connection must at least be anchored on credible information[44] and not on self-serving allegations. | |||||
|
2014-07-28 |
SERENO, C.J. |
||||
| On that note, we emphasize that making factual findings based only on presumptions[23] and absent the quantum of evidence required in labor cases[24] is an erroneous application of the law on compensation proceedings. This Court has ruled in Gabunas, Sr. v. Scanmar Maritime Services, Inc.,[25] citing Government Service Insurance System v. Cuntapay,[26] that claimants in compensation proceedings must show credible information that there is probably a relation between the illness and the work. Probability, and not mere possibility, is required; otherwise, the resulting conclusion would proceed from deficient proofs.[27] | |||||
|
2013-08-28 |
SERENO, C.J. |
||||
| This approach to case disposition by the CA making factual findings based only on presumptions,[46] and absent the quantum of evidence required in labor cases[47] is an erroneous application of the law on compensation proceedings. As we have ruled in Gabunas, Sr. v. Scanmar Maritime Services, Inc.,[48] citing Government Service Insurance System v. Cuntapay,[49] claimants in compensation proceedings must show credible information that there is probably a relation between the illness and the work. Probability, and not mere possibility, is required; otherwise, the resulting conclusion would proceed from deficient proofs.[50] Thus, since the CA crafted a legal conclusion out of conjectures and without substantial evidence, we rule that a reversible error of law attended its award of death benefits, minor child's allowance, and burial expenses. For this reason, we delete the grant thereof to respondent. | |||||
|
2011-03-09 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| At the outset, it must be emphasized that the issues raised in this petition are questions of fact which are not proper subjects of an appeal by certiorari. Well-settled is the rule that under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, only questions of law may be raised before this Court.[13] A disharmony between the factual findings of the LA and the NLRC, however, opens the door to a review by this Court.Factual findings of administrative agencies are not infallible and will be set aside when they fail the test of arbitrariness. Moreover, when the findings of the NLRC contradict those of the LA, this Court, in the exercise of its equity jurisdiction, may look into the records of the case and re-examine the questioned findings.[14] | |||||