This case has been cited 8 times or more.
|
2012-08-29 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| It is the oft-repeated rule, however, that whoever claims entitlement to the benefits provided by law should establish his right to the benefits by substantial evidence.[45] As such, Tanawan must present concrete proof showing that he acquired or contracted the injury or illness that resulted to his disability during the term of his employment contract.[46] Proof of this circumstance was particularly crucial in view of his non-reporting of the injury to the petitioner. Yet, he did not present any proof of having sustained the eye injury during the term of his contract. All that he submitted was his bare allegation that his eye had been splashed with some thinner while he was on board the vessel. He also did not adduce any proof demonstrating that the splashing of thinner could have caused the retinal detachment with vitreous hemorrhage. At the very least, he should have adduced proof that would tie the accident to the eye injury. We note at this juncture that even the certification by Dr. Bunuan provided no information on the possible cause of the eye injury. | |||||
|
2012-08-01 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Neither is Casomo's cause bolstered by the medical certificate issued by a certain Dr. Amado San Luis on his current medical condition. The medical certificate was confined to the doctor's finding that Casomo ''is not physically and mentally fit to face the rigorous tasks expected of an able sea man."[18] | |||||
|
2010-11-22 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| Petitioner's illness was already existing when he commenced his fourth contract of employment with respondents, hence, not compensable.[25] Given that the employment of a seafarer is governed by the contract he signs every time he is rehired and his employment is terminated when his contract expires,[26] petitioner's illness during his previous contract with respondents is deemed pre-existing during his subsequent contract. | |||||
|
2010-03-22 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| The fact that respondent passed the company's PEME is of no moment. We have ruled that in the past the PEME is not exploratory in nature. It was not intended to be a totally in-depth and thorough examination of an applicant's medical condition. The PEME merely determines whether one is "fit to work" at sea or "fit for sea service," it does not state the real state of health of an applicant.[27] In short, the "fit to work" declaration in the respondent's PEME cannot be a conclusive proof to show that he was free from any ailment prior to his deployment. Thus we held in NYK-FIL Ship Management, Inc. v. NLRC:[28] | |||||
|
2009-07-23 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| It is also of no moment that petitioner Nisda passed his pre-employment medical examination before he was hired and deployed by respondent ADAMS as a seafarer. It has been accepted that pre-employment medical examinations are usually not exploratory in nature.[74] The same is not intended to be a totally in-depth and thorough examination of an applicant's medical condition. It merely determines whether one is "fit to work" at sea or "fit for sea service"; it does not describe the real state of health of an applicant. "While a [pre-employment medical examination] may reveal enough for the [foreign employer] to decide whether a seafarer is fit for overseas employment, it may not be relied upon to inform petitioners of a seafarer's true state of health. The [pre-employment medical examination] could not have divulged respondent's illness considering that the examinations were not exploratory."[75] | |||||
|
2008-06-17 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| The employment of seafarers, including claims for death benefits, is governed by the contracts they sign every time they are hired or rehired;[18] and as long as the stipulations therein are not contrary to law, morals, public order or public policy, they have the force of law between the parties.[19] While the seafarer and his employer are governed by their mutual agreement, the POEA rules and regulations[20] require that the POEA Standard Employment Contract be integrated in every seafarer's contract.[21] | |||||
|
2008-04-30 |
TINGA, J, |
||||
| Petitioner is actually referring to the Pre-Employment Medical Examination (PEME), a requirement before one is hired and deployed as a seafarer. We have already ruled that the PEME is not exploratory in nature. It was not intended to be a totally in-depth and thorough examination of an applicant's medical condition. The PEME merely determines whether one is "fit to work" at sea or "fit for sea service," it does not state the real state of health of an applicant. Thus, as we held in NYK-FIL Ship Management, Inc. v. NLRC and Lauro A. Hernandez,[27] | |||||
|
2008-04-30 |
TINGA, J, |
||||
| While a PEME may reveal enough for the petitioner (vessel) to decide whether a seafarer is fit for overseas employment, it may not be relied upon to inform petitioners of a seafarer's true state of health. The PEME could not have divulged respondent's illness considering that the examinations were not exploratory.[28] | |||||