To establish compensability of the claim under the said theory, the
claimant must show proof of work-connection. Impliedly, the degree of
proof required is merely substantial evidence, which means "such
relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to
support a conclusion" (Ang Tibay vs. The Court of Industrial Relations and National Labor Union, Inc., 69 Phil. 635) or clear and convincing evidence.
In this connection, it must be pointed out that the strict rules of
evidence are not applicable in claims for compensation. Respondents
however insist on evidence which would establish direct causal relation
between the disease rectal cancer and the employment of the deceased.
Such a strict requirement which even medical experts in the field cannot
support considering the uncertainty of the nature of the disease would
negate the principle of liberality in the matter of evidence.
Apparently, what the law merely requires is a reasonable
work-connection and not a direct causal relation. This kind of
interpretation gives meaning and substance to the liberal and
compassionate spirit of the law as embodied in Article 4 of the new
Labor Code which states that "all doubts in the implementation and
interpretation of the provisions of this Code, including its
implementing rules and regulations shall be resolved in favor of labor."
No comments:
Post a Comment