Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

EDGARDO M. PANGANIBAN v. TARA TRADING SHIPMANAGEMENT INC.

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 183212 2015-03-16	WALLEM PHILIPPINES SERVICES v. HEIRS OF LATE PETER PADRONES PERALTA, J.
The Court commiserates with respondents, but absent substantial evidence from which reasonable basis for the grant of benefits prayed for can be drawn, the Court is left with no choice but to grant the petition, lest an injustice be caused to petitioners.[37] Otherwise stated, while it is true that labor contracts are impressed with public interest and the provisions of the POEA-SEC must be construed logically and liberally in favor of Filipino seamen in the pursuit of their employment on-board ocean-going vessels, still the rule is that justice is in every case for the deserving, to be dispensed with in the light of established facts, the applicable law, and existing jurisprudence.[38]
	GR No. 181921 2014-09-17	INTERORIENT MARITIME ENTERPRISES v. VICTOR M. CREER III DEL CASTILLO, J.
Besides, as already emphasized by this Court, "in the absence of substantial evidence, working conditions cannot be accepted to have caused or at least increased the risk of contracting the disease x x x. Substantial evidence is more than a mere scintilla. The evidence must be real and substantial, and not merely apparent; for the duty to prove work-causation or work-aggravation imposed by law is real and not merely apparent."[41]
	GR No. 198342 2014-08-13	REMEDIOS O. YAP v. ROVER MARITIME SERVICES CORPORATION PERALTA, J.
It is an oft-repeated rule that whoever claims entitlement to the benefits provided by law should establish his right thereto by no less than substantial evidence.[26] Substantial evidence is more than a mere scintilla. It must reach the level of relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as sufficient to support a conclusion.[27] The evidence must be real and substantial, and not merely apparent; for the duty to prove work-causation or work-aggravation imposed by law is real and not merely apparent.[28] As such, the burden to prove entitlement to death benefits lies on the petitioner.[29]
	GR No. 166803 2012-10-11	CREWLINK v. EDITHA TERINGTERING PERALTA, J.
The Court commiserates with the respondent, but absent substantial evidence from which reasonable basis for the grant of benefits prayed for can be drawn, the Court is left with no choice but to deny her petition, lest an injustice be caused to the employer. Otherwise stated, while it is true that labor contracts are impressed with public interest and the provisions of the POEA-SEC must be construed logically and liberally in favor of Filipino seamen in the pursuit of their employment on board ocean-going vessels, still the rule is that justice is in every case for the deserving, to be dispensed with in the light of established facts, the applicable law, and existing jurisprudence.[9]
	GR No. 173951 2012-04-16	DANIEL M. ISON v. CREWSERVE DEL CASTILLO, J.
From the foregoing provision, it is explicit and clear that for purposes of determining the seafarer's degree of disability, it is the company-designated physician who must proclaim that he sustained a permanent disability, whether total or partial, due to either injury or illness, during the term of his employment. This was the ruling in Panganiban v. Tara Trading Shipmanagement, Inc,[28] where it was held that there being no ambiguity in the wordings of the Standard Employment Contract that the only qualification prescribed for the physician entrusted with the task of assessing the disability is that he be "company-designated," the literal meaning of the same shall thus control.