Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ORIENTAL SHIPMANAGEMENT CO. v. ROMY B. BASTOL

This case has been cited 8 times or more.

	GR No. 198528 2014-10-13	MAGSAYSAY MITSUI OSK MARINE v. JUANITO G. BENGSON DEL CASTILLO, J.
In many cases decided in the past, this Court has held that cardiovascular disease, coronary artery disease, and other heart ailments are compensable. Thus, in Fil-Pride Shipping Company, Inc. v. Balasta,[28] severe 3-vessel coronary artery disease which the seaman contracted while serving as Able Seaman was considered an occupational disease. In Villanueva, Sr. v. Baliwag Navigation, Inc.,[29] it was held that the 2000 POEA-SEC considers heart disease as an occupational disease. In Jebsens Maritime, Inc. v. Undag,[30] the Court held that hypertensive cardiovascular disease may be a compensable illness, upon proof. In Oriental Shipmanagement Co., Inc. v. Bastol[31] and Heirs of the late Aniban v. National Labor Relations Commission,[32] it was held that myocardial infarction as a disease or cause of death is compensable, such being occupational. Iloreta v. Philippine Transmarine Carriers, Inc.[33] held that hypertensive cardiovascular disease/coronary artery disease and chronic stable angina are compensable. Micronesia Resources v. Cantomayor[34] stated that a finding of coronary artery disease entitles the claimant a seaman Third Officer to disability compensation. In Remigio v. National Labor Relations Commission,[35] the Court held that the claimant a musician on board an ocean-going vessel was entitled to recover for suffering from coronary artery disease. In Sepulveda v. Employees' Compensation Commission,[36] it was declared that the employee's illness, myocardial infarction, was directly brought about by his employment as schoolteacher or was a result of the nature of such employment.
	GR No. 198367 2014-08-06	OSG SHIPMANAGEMENT MANILA v. JOSELITO B. PELLAZAR BRION, J.
In its decision under review, the CA granted the petition, reversed the challenged NLRC rulings and, reinstated LA Darlucio's award of permanent total disability benefits to Pellazar thereby disregarding the Grade 10 disability rating in accordance with the POEA-SEC of the company-designated physicians. It stressed that permanent total disability is not determined by gradings but by the number of days the disability has lasted. It explained that under Article 192 of the Labor Code, a disability shall be deemed total and permanent if the temporary disability has lasted for more than a continuous period of 120 days and this is the concept of permanent total disability that the Supreme Court has applied in Wallem Maritime Services, Inc. v. NLRC,[14] reiterated in subsequent cases as Crystal Shipping, Inc., v. Natividad[15] and lately, Oriental Shipmanagement Co., Inc. v. Bastol.[16] The petitioners moved for reconsideration, but the CA denied the motion in its resolution of August 24 2010;[17] hence, the present petition.
	GR No. 201072 2014-04-02	UNITED PHILIPPINE LINES v. GENEROSO E. SIBUG VILLARAMA, JR., J.
As we said in Oriental Shipmanagement Co., Inc. v. Bastol,[24] the company-designated doctor must declare the seaman fit to work or assess the degree of his permanent disability.
	GR No. 192034 2014-01-13	ALPHA SHIP MANAGEMENT CORPORATION v. ELEOSIS V. CALO DEL CASTILLO, J.
On the issue of the adjudged disability benefit, respondent argues that he is entitled to the full US$60,000.00, and not merely the lower amount of US$10,075.00 advanced by petitioners. Citing Oriental Shipmanagement Co., Inc. v. Bastol,[40] he
	GR No. 187337 2012-12-05	LOADSTAR INTERNATIONAL SHIPPING v. HEIRS OF LATE ENRIQUE C. CALAWIGAN PEREZ, J.
Time and again, we have ruled that self-serving and unsubstantiated declarations are insufficient to establish a case before quasi-judicial bodies where the quantum of evidence required to establish a fact is substantial evidence.[31] Often described as more than a mere scintilla,[32] substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, even if other equally reasonable minds might conceivably opine otherwise.[33] To our mind, Calawigan's unsubstantiated assertion that he requested for a post-employment medical examination from LISI does not even come close to approximating the foregoing quantum of proof. Given that compliance with said requirement is mandatory and the unexplained omission thereof will bar the filing of a claim for disability benefits,[34] the CA clearly erred when it adjudged Calawigan entitled to sickness allowance and permanent disability compensation despite his failure to abide by the procedure outlined under the POEA-SEC. As it would be fairly easy for a physician to determine whether the injury or ailment is work-related within three-days from repatriation, to ignore the requirement would set a precedent with negative repercussions which would open the floodgates to a limitless number of seafarers claiming disability benefits.[35]
	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.
	GR No. 176377 2011-11-16	FUNCTIONAL v. SAMUEL C. GRANFIL PEREZ, J.
The rule is long and well settled that, in illegal dismissal cases like the one at bench, the burden of proof is upon the employer to show that the employee's termination from service is for a just and valid cause.[16] The employer's case succeeds or fails on the strength of its evidence and not the weakness of that adduced by the employee,[17] in keeping with the principle that the scales of justice should be tilted in favor of the latter in case of doubt in the evidence presented by them.[18] Often described as more than a mere scintilla,[19] the quantum of proof is substantial evidence which is understood as such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, even if other equally reasonable minds might conceivably opine otherwise.[20] Failure of the employer to discharge the foregoing onus would mean that the dismissal is not justified and therefore illegal.[21]