Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

SPLASH PHILIPPINES v. RONULFO G. RUIZO

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 212878 2016-02-01	MARLOW NAVIGATION PHILS. v. WILFREDO L. CABATAY BRION, J.
Also, in Splash Philippines, Inc. v. Ruizo, the Court said that the 120-day rule "cannot be used as a cure-all formula for all maritime compensation cases. Its application must depend on the circumstances of the case, including especially compliance with the parties' contractual duties and obligations as laid down in the POEA-SEC and/or their CBA, if one exists."[31]
	GR No. 215313 2015-10-21	OLIMPIO O. OLIDANA v. JEBSENS MARITIME MENDOZA, J.
Yet, the CA held that Olidana's disease did not merit the award of total permanent disability benefits because he only suffered a Grade 10 impediment based on the company-designated physicians' disability report. The CA relied on Splash Philippines, Inc., v. Ruizo[7] stating that the seafarer should be compensated in accordance with the schedule of benefits and governed by the rates and rules of compensation applicable at the time the illness or disease was contracted.
	GR No. 207328 2015-04-20	WILHELMSEN-SMITH BELL MANNING v. ALLAN SUAREZ BRION, J.
In Splash Philippines, Inc., et al, v. Ronulfo G. Ruizo[34] the Court reiterated that the 120-day rule for the declaration of a permanent total disability laid down in earlier maritime compensation cases, the most prominent of which was Crystal Shipping, Inc., v. Natividad[35] had already been clarified or modified.
	GR No. 209201 2014-11-19	NEW FILIPINO MARITIME AGENCIES INC. v. MICHAEL D. DESPABELADERAS MENDOZA, J.
The CA's conclusion that Michael was entitled to permanent total disability benefits on the basis of his inability to perform his sea duties for more than 120 days cannot be justified under the prevailing circumstances. The 120-day rule, as aptly posited by petitioners, has already been clarified in Vergara where it was declared that the 120-day rule could not simply be applied as a general rule for all cases and in all contexts. In other words, it cannot be used as a cure-all formula for all maritime compensation cases. Vergara's application depends on the circumstances of the case, especially the parties' compliance with their contractual duties and obligations as laid down in the POEA-SEC and/or their CBA, if one exists.[24]
	GR No. 209201 2014-11-19	NEW FILIPINO MARITIME AGENCIES INC. v. MICHAEL D. DESPABELADERAS MENDOZA, J.
There being no assessment, Michael's condition cannot be considered a permanent total disability. Temporary total disability only becomes permanent when declared by the company physician within the period he is allowed to do so, or upon the expiration of the maximum 240-day medical treatment period without a declaration of either fitness to work or permanent disability.[28]