This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2015-09-09 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| In Interorient Maritime Enterprises, Inc. v. Creer,[35] the Court explained the raison d'etre of the mandatory post-employment medical examination in this wise: The rationale for the rule is that reporting the illness or injury within three days from repatriation fairly makes it easier for a physician to determine the cause of the illness or injury. Ascertaining the real cause of the illness or injury beyond the period may prove difficult. To ignore the rule might set a precedent with negative repercussions, like opening floodgates to a limitless number of seafarers claiming disability benefits, or causing unfairness to the employer who would have difficulty determining the cause of a claimant's illness because of the passage of time. The employer would then have no protection against unrelated disability claims.[36] | |||||
|
2015-04-20 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Claiming entitlement to benefits under the law, petitioner must ' establish his right thereto by substantial evidence.[15] | |||||
|
2015-01-21 |
LEONEN, J. |
||||
| The concurring opinion in Interorient Maritime Enterprises, Inc. v. Creer III[54] discussed that: [t]he Philippine Overseas Employment Administration or POEA regulations require certain provisions to be put in the employment contract. Necessarily, it prescribes a procedure that finds a balance of interest in both the amount and the process for recovery of compensation as a result of occupational hazards suffered by the seafarer. The cause of action in such recovery is based on contract inclusive of both statutory and regulatory provisions impliedly included in it. | |||||