This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2007-09-21 |
AZCUNA, J. |
||||
| Under the Labor Code, as amended, an employee is entitled to compensation benefits if the sickness is a result of an occupational disease listed under Annex "A" of the Rules on Employees' Compensation; or in case of any other illness, if it is caused by employment, subject to proof that the risk of contracting the same is increased by the working conditions.[14] This is as it should be because for an illness to be compensable, it must be (1) directly caused by such employment; (2) aggravated by the employment; or (3) the result of the nature of such employment.[15] Jurisprudence provides that to establish compensability of a non-occupational disease, reasonable proof of work-connection and not direct causal relation is required.[16] It is enough that the hypothesis on which the workmen's claim is based is probable.[17] Probability, not the ultimate degree of certainty, is the test of proof in compensation proceedings[18] since in carrying out and interpreting the provisions of the Labor Code and its implementing rules and regulations the primordial and paramount consideration is the employees' welfare. | |||||
|
2007-08-24 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| Concededly, Merlita's illness, urolithiasis, is not among those listed in the table of occupational diseases embodied in Annex "A" of the Rules on Employees' Compensation. Nevertheless, the Court agrees with the Court of Appeals in its finding that Merlita was able to prove by substantial evidence that her working conditions increased the risk of contracting the disease. Substantial evidence is the amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify the conclusion.[26] | |||||
|
2005-08-16 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| P.D. No. 626, otherwise known as the Employees Compensation Act., is a specie of social legislation, the primary purpose of which is to provide meaningful protection to the ordinary worker against the perils of disability, the hazards of illness, and hardships of other contingencies which may result in the loss of income. Indeed, it is the policy of the State to give maximum aid and protection to labor.[5] | |||||
|
2003-03-28 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Workmen's Compensation cases are governed by the law in force at the time the claimant contracted his illness.[12] In the instant case, the applicable rule is Section 1 (b),[13] Rule III, of the Rules Implementing P.D. No. 626. Under said Rule, for the sickness to be compensable, the same must be an "occupational disease" included in the list provided, with the conditions set therein satisfied; otherwise, the claimant must show proof that the risk of contracting it is increased by the working conditions.[14] What kind and quantum of evidence would constitute an adequate basis for a reasonable man (not necessarily a medical scientist) to reach one or the other conclusion, can obviously be determined only on a case-to-case basis.[15] For reasons herein elaborated, we agree with the appellate court that respondent Pedro Mariano has substantially proved his claim to compensability. | |||||