Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEDRO LIBANG v. INDOCHINA SHIP MANAGEMENT INC.

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 215313 2015-10-21	OLIMPIO O. OLIDANA v. JEBSENS MARITIME MENDOZA, J.
In Libang, Jr. v. Indochina Ship Management, Inc.,[16] the seafarer therein experienced numbness on the left side of his face, difficulty in hearing from his left ear, blurred vision of his left eye, and speech problem while aboard the vessel. Upon repatriation, he was treated by the company-designated physician. The latter then issued a medical certificate indicating that it was difficult to state whether both the seafarer's diabetes mellitus and small pontine were pre-existing conditions. In that case, the Court ruled that the company-designated physician's medical certificate must be set aside as the "[a]ssessment was evidently uncertain and the extent of his examination for a proper medical diagnosis was incomplete."[17]
	GR NOS. 178085 - 178086 2015-09-14	UNIVERSITY OF IMMACULATE CONCEPTION v. OFFICE OF SECRETARY OF LABOR JARDELEZA, J.
Next, UIC assails the tripartite committee's computation of the net incremental proceeds, which was affirmed by the Secretary and the Court of Appeals. UIC is essentially asking us to review and evaluate the probative value of the evidence presented below. Suffice it to say that such exercise is not proper in an appeal by certiorari. In a petition for review under Rule 45, only questions of law may be put in issue.[35] We cannot emphasize to litigants enough that the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts.[36] It is not our function to analyze or weigh the evidence all over again.[37] Corollary to this is the doctrine that findings of fact of labor tribunals, when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are accorded not only great respect but even finality.[38] In this case, the tripartite committee, the Secretary, and the Court of Appeals were unanimous in disallowing the deductions being claimed by UIC. We find no cogent reason to disturb the same.
	GR No. 203804 2015-04-15	DARIO A. CARCEDO v. MAINE MARINE PHILIPPINES CARPIO, J.
Here, the company-designated physician failed to give a definitive impediment rating of Carcedo's disability beyond the extended temporary disability period, after the 120-day period but less than 240 days. By operation of law, therefore, Carcedo's total and temporary disability lapsed into a total and permanent disability.[43]