This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2015-07-08 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| To recapitulate, the Labor Arbiter ruled that Pastor's illness is work-related. The NLRC affirmed this finding by holding that the accident he met while carrying heavy food provisions was the proximate cause of his injury. For its part, the CA ultimately concluded that the illness was acquired by Pastor due to his work as a messman whose primary duties and responsibilities include cleaning accommodations, galley, pantries, alleys, storerooms, salons and messrooms, washing, cleaning and preparing tables, collecting and laundering dirty linen, serving food and restocking supplies in pantries, engine room, bridge, etc. It further ruled that Pastor was able to prove the conditions necessary for osteoarthritis to be considered as having arisen in the course of his employment either by direct causation or aggravation due to the nature of his work. The Court is not inclined to depart from the aforementioned findings of the Labor Arbiter, NLRC and the CA. As it has been held, "where the factual findings of the labor tribunals or agencies conform to, and are affirmed by the CA, the same are accorded respect and finality and are binding upon this Court."[44] Besides, that Pastor figured in an accident while performing his duties on board the vessel was not at all disputed by petitioners. It is also plain from his duties and responsibilities as enumerated in the Company Standing Instructions Manual[45] that his work involved carrying heavy loads and the performance of other strenuous activities such that it can reasonably be concluded that his work caused or at least aggravated his illness. In view of these, the Court sustains the uniform findings of the Labor Arbiter, the NLRC and the CA that Pastor's ailment is work-related and compensable. | |||||
|
2014-06-09 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| "[A] finding that a contractor is a 'labor-only' contractor is equivalent to declaring that there is an employer-employee relationship between the principal and the employees of the supposed contractor."[53] In this case, the employer-employee relationship between Petron and petitioners becomes all the more apparent due to the presence of the power of control on the part of the former over the latter. | |||||