Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

YOLANDA SIGNEY v. SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 209741 2015-04-15	SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSION v. EDNA A. AZOTE MENDOZA, J.
Using the parameters outlined in Article 41 of the Family Code, Edna, without doubt, failed to establish that there was no impediment or that the impediment was already removed at the time of the celebration of her marriage to Edgardo. Settled is the rule that "whoever claims entitlement to the benefits provided by law should establish his or her right thereto by substantial evidence."[28] Edna could not adduce evidence to prove that the earlier marriage of Edgardo was either annulled or dissolved or whether there was a declaration of Rosemarie's presumptive death before her marriage to Edgardo. What is apparent is that Edna was the second wife of Edgardo. Considering that Edna was not able to show that she was the legal spouse of a deceased-member, she would not qualify under the law to be the beneficiary of the death benefits of Edgardo.
	GR No. 194758 2012-10-24	RUBEN D. ANDRADA v. AGEMAR MANNING AGENCY MENDOZA, J.
True, strict rules on evidence are not applicable in claims for compensation and disability benefits. Probability and not ultimate degree of certainty is the test of proof in compensation proceedings.[22] It cannot be gainsaid, however, that award of compensation and disability benefits cannot rest on speculations, presumptions or conjectures. In the absence of adequate tests and reasonable findings to support the same, Dr.Vicaldo's assessment should not be taken at face value. The oft-repeated rule is that whoever claims entitlement to the benefits provided by law should establish his or her right thereto by substantial evidence.[23] In labor cases, as in other administrative proceedings, substantial evidence is required and it is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion,[24] often described as more than a scintilla. The onus probandi fell on Andrada to establish his claim for disability benefits by the requisite quantum of evidence to serve as basis for the grant of relief. In this task, he failed.
	GRNo. 170195 2011-03-28	SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSION v. TERESA G. FAVILA DEL CASTILLO, J.
From the above-quoted provisions, it is plain that for a spouse to qualify as a primary beneficiary under paragraph (k) thereof, he/she must not only be a legitimate spouse but also a dependent as defined under paragraph (e), that is, one who is dependent upon the member for support. Paragraphs (e) and (k) of Section 8 of RA 1161 are very clear. "Hence, we need only apply the law. Under the principles of statutory construction, if a statute is clear, plain and free from ambiguity, it must be given its literal meaning and applied without attempted interpretation. This plain meaning rule or verba legis, derived from the maxim index animo sermo est (speech is the index of intention), rests on the valid presumption that the words employed by the legislature in a statute correctly express its intent by the use of such words as are found in the statute. Verba legisnon est recedendum , or, from the words of a statute there should be no departure."[24]
	GR No. 188802 2011-02-14	REVELINA LIMSON v. WACK WACK CONDOMINIUM CORPORATION CARPIO MORALES, J.
Where a statute is clear, plain and free from ambiguity, it must be given its literal meaning and applied without attempt to interpret.[7] Verba legis non est recedendum, index animi sermo est. There should be no departure from the words of the statute, for speech is the index of intention.
	GR No. 184722 2010-03-15	ALEX C. COOTAUCO v. MMS PHIL. MARITIME SERVICES PEREZ, J.
The oft repeated rule is that whoever claims entitlement to the benefits provided by law should establish his or her right thereto by substantial evidence.[32]