Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

CREW v. JINA T. SORIA

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 175795 2015-06-22	NORMILITO R. CAGATIN v. MAGSAYSAY MARITIME CORPORATION PERALTA, J.
As a final note, the Court is wary of the principle that provisions of the POEA-SEC must be applied with liberality in favor of the seafarers, for it is only then that its beneficent provisions can be fully carried into effect.[80] However, on several occasions[81] when disability claims anchored on such contract were based on flimsy grounds and unfounded allegations, the Court never hesitated to deny the same. Claims for compensation based on surmises cannot be allowed; liberal construction is not a license to disregard the evidence on record or to misapply the laws.[82] This Court abides by the principle 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.[83]
	GR No. 200566 2014-09-17	JEBSEN MARITIME INC. v. WILFREDO E. RAVENA BRION, J.
In Cootauco v. MMS Phil. Maritime Services, Inc.,[30] we categorically declared that whoever claims entitlement to the benefits provided by law should establish his rights to the benefits by substantial evidence.[31] We reiterated this ruling in Wallem Maritime Services, Inc. v. Tanawan,[32] Andrada v. Agemar Manning Agency, Inc.,[33] Crew and Ship Management International Inc. v. Soria,[34] Philman Marine Agency, Inc. v. Cabanban,[35] and Manota v. Avantgarde Shipping Corporation,[36] to name a few. In the case of a seafarer claiming entitlement to disability benefits under the provisions of the POEA-SEC, this burden of proof obviously lies with the seafarer.
	GR No. 181921 2014-09-17	INTERORIENT MARITIME ENTERPRISES v. VICTOR M. CREER III DEL CASTILLO, J.
* clean up mess room.[9]
	GR No. 198342 2014-08-13	REMEDIOS O. YAP v. ROVER MARITIME SERVICES CORPORATION PERALTA, J.
The terms and conditions of a seafarer's employment, including claims for death and disability benefits, is a matter governed, not only by medical findings, but by the contract he entered into with his employer and the law which is deemed integrated therein.[20] For as long as the stipulations in the contract are not contrary to law, morals, public order, or public policy, they have the force of law between the parties.[21]
	GR No. 198699 2013-10-09	REXIE A. HORMILLOSA v. COCA-COLA BOTTLERS PHILS. MENDOZA, J.
(a) Serious misconduct or willful disobedience by the employee of the lawful orders of his employer or representative in connection with his work; (b) Gross and habitual neglect by the employee of his duties; (c) Fraud or willful breach by the employee of the trust reposed in him by his employer or duly authorized representative; (d) Commission of a crime or offense by the employee against the person of his employer or any immediate member of his family or his duly authorized representative; and (e) Other causes analogous to the foregoing. The rule is that, in labor cases, substantial evidence or such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as sufficient to support a conclusion is required.[18] The CA was correct when it ruled that Hormillosa's employment was validly terminated under paragraph (c) of the above provision. There was substantial evidence to justify his dismissal.
	GR No. 179607 2013-07-24	CIRILA MANOTA v. AVANTGARDE SHIPPING CORPORATION PERALTA, J.
The employment of seafarers, including claims for death and disability benefits, is governed by the contracts they sign every time they are hired or rehired, and as long as the stipulations therein are not contrary to law, morals, public order, or public policy, they have the force of law between the parties.[23]
	GR No. 179607 2013-07-24	CIRILA MANOTA v. AVANTGARDE SHIPPING CORPORATION PERALTA, J.
And it is the oft-repeated rule that whoever claims entitlement to the benefits provided by law should establish his right to the benefits by substantial evidence.[26] Often described as more than a mere scintilla, 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.[27] Any decision based on unsubstantiated allegations cannot stand as it will offend due process.[28] Hence, the burden to prove entitlement to disability benefits lies on petitioners, thus they must establish that Enrique had contracted his illness which resulted to his disability during the term of the employment contract.