This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2015-04-20 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| However, the Court also reiterates the rule that "whoever claims entitlement to the benefits provided by law should establish his right to the benefits by substantial evidence"[25] or "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."[26] Absent a showing thereof, any decision set forth will only be based on unsubstantiated allegations. Accordingly, the Court cannot grant a claim for disability benefits without adequate substantiation for to do so will offend due process.[27] The foregoing jurisprudential principle effectively shows that the burden of proving entitlement to disability benefits lies on petitioners.[28] Thus, they must establish that Delfin suffered or contracted his injury or illness which resulted in his disability during the term of the employment contract. An examination of the records, however, shows that petitioners failed to discharge such burden. | |||||
|
2014-08-13 |
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] | |||||