Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

WALLEM MARITIME SERVICES v. NLRC

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 175005 2008-04-30	ESTATE OF POSEDIO ORTEGA v. CA TINGA, J,
For its part, petitioner merely claims that Ortega's exposure to smoke and fumes emitted by the vessel caused the development of pneumonia, which in turn aggravated or modified his lung cancer.[22] In addition, petitioner invokes the cases of Wallem Maritime Services, Inc. v. NLRC[23] and Seagull Shipmanagement v. NLRC,[24] to support its claim of compensability.
	GR No. 151158 2007-08-17	JOEL B. DE JESUS v. NLRC NACHURA, J.
The rule is that an ailment contracted even prior to his employment, does not detract from the compensability of the disease. It is not required that the employment be the sole factor in the growth, development or acceleration of the illness to entitle the claimant to the benefits incident thereto. It is enough that the employment had contributed, even in a small measure, to the development of the disease.[21]
	GR No. 160315 2005-11-11	LOURDES D. RIVERA v. WALLEM MARITIME SERVICES CALLEJO, SR., J.
Lourdes appealed the matter to the NLRC, which, after due proceedings, reversed the decision of the Labor Arbiter.[16] According to the NLRC, Wallem Shipping could not be faulted for not extending the necessary medical examination upon disembarkation because, in the first place, the deceased failed to comply with what was required of him under the contract, i.e., to submit himself to medical check-up within 72 hours upon arrival. However, this was not a bar for Lourdes to claim death benefits due her on account of her husband's death. Citing Wallem Maritime Services, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission,[17] the NLRC ruled that it is not required that employment be the sole factor in the acceleration of the illness as to entitle the claimant to death benefits. The dispositive portion of the decision reads:
	GR NO. 159146 2005-01-28	OSM SHIPPING PHIL. v. ANTONIA DELA CRUZ PUNO, J.
The assailed Decision cited the case of Wallem Maritime Services, Inc. v. NLRC.[31] As correctly pointed out by petitioner, the doctrine in Wallem is not applicable to the case at bar. In that case, the issue is whether respondent's husband's death, caused by a pre-existing disease, is compensable despite the failure of the deceased to comply with the post-medical examination requirement under the Contract. It did not involve any issue of misrepresentation.