This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2015-01-21 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Clearly, the employer is liable to pay the heirs of the deceased seafarer for death benefits once it is established that he died during the effectivity of his employment contract. However, the employer may be exempt from liability if it can successfully prove that the seaman's death was caused by an injury directly attributable to his deliberate or willful act.[28] Thus, since petitioners were able to substantially prove that seaman Glicerio's death is directly attributable to his deliberate act of hanging himself, his death, therefore, is not compensable and his heirs not entitled to any compensation or benefits. | |||||
|
2014-08-11 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| From the foregoing, it is more logical to rely on the findings of the Italian Medical examiner. In Maritime Factors, Inc. v. Hindang,[17] the Court gave credence to the medical report made by the Saudi Arabian doctor, who immediately conducted an autopsy on the seafarer's body upon his death. The Court reasoned, thus: We give credence to Dr. Hameed's medical report establishing that Danilo committed suicide by hanging himself. Dr. Hameed conducted the autopsy of Danilo's remains immediately after the latter's death. He saw first-hand the condition of Danilo's body, which upon his examination led him to conclude that Danilo died by hanging himself. His report was comprehensive and more detailed. He, likewise, noted, that there were no signs of violence or resistance, or any external injuries except a very slight and artificial injury of nearly 5 cm among the toes of Danilo's right leg. [18] | |||||
|
2012-02-08 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| At the outset, it must be stressed that the jurisdiction of this Court in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court is limited to reviewing errors of law, not of fact. This is in line with the well-entrenched doctrine that the Court is not a trier of facts, and this is strictly adhered to in labor cases.[12] Factual findings of labor officials, who are deemed to have acquired expertise in matters within their respective jurisdictions, are generally accorded not only respect but even finality, and bind the Court when supported by substantial evidence. Particularly when passed upon and upheld by the CA, they are binding and conclusive upon the Court and will not normally be disturbed.[13] This is because it is not the function of this Court to analyze or weigh all over again the evidence already considered in the proceedings below; or reevaluate the credibility of witnesses; or substitute the findings of fact of an administrative tribunal which has expertise in its special field.[14] | |||||