This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2012-10-24 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| The Court is not unaware of the principle that, consistent with the purpose underlying the formulation of the POEA-SEC, its provisions must be applied fairly, reasonably and liberally in favor of the seafarers, for it is only then that its beneficent provisions can be carried into effect.[26] Said exhortation, however, cannot be taken to sanction award of disability benefits anchored on flimsy evidence. There is nothing on record that would justify a compensation on top of the monetary aid and assistance already extended to Andrada by respondents Agemar Manning and Sonnet Shipping. | |||||
|
2006-04-12 |
PUNO, J. |
||||
| Thus, the Court has applied the Labor Code concept of permanent total disability to the case of seafarers. In Philippine Transmarine Carriers v. NLRC,[39] seaman Carlos Nietes was found to be suffering from congestive heart failure and cardiomyopathy and was declared as unfit to work by the company-accredited physician. The Court affirmed the award of disability benefits to the seaman, citing ECC v. Sanico,[40] GSIS v. CA,[41] and Bejerano v. ECC[42] that "disability should not be understood more on its medical significance but on the loss of earning capacity. Permanent total disability means disablement of an employee to earn wages in the same kind of work, or work of similar nature that [he] was trained for or accustomed to perform, or any kind of work which a person of [his] mentality and attainment could do. It does not mean absolute helplessness." It likewise cited Bejerano v. ECC,[43] that in a disability compensation, it is not the injury which is compensated, but rather it is the incapacity to work resulting in the impairment of one's earning capacity. | |||||