
Lorenzo vs. Workmen’s Compensation 81 scra 434
Category: Civil Law Jurisprudence
Facts:
Lorenzo, the petitioner was employed as a member in the Phil. Glass Manufacturing Co. on August 27, 1974. Petitioner complained of chest pain and fever for which he consulted Dr. Rodolfo Gonzales. Lorenzo incurred tuberculosis in the course of his employment. The petitioner asked the benefit under Workmen’s Compensation unit, Regional Office IX of the Dept. Of Labor because of his lung disease. However, the petition was dismissed. The petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration but was denied.
Issue:
Whether or not Lorenzo has waived his rights to benefits.
Held:
The Supreme Court ruled that the failure of employer to controvert right of claimant to compensation benefits within the statutory period amounted to waiver of right to controvert the claim. Having filed to controvert the claim timely, the respondent company was thereby considered to have renounced all defenses, such as the non-compensability of the claim. Lorenzo is entitled to benefits.
Related Philippine Law Resources:
Newer Philippine Law Resources:
Additional Law Reading:
Lorenzo vs. Workmen’s Compensation 81 scra 434
Category: Civil Law Jurisprudence
Facts:
Lorenzo, the petitioner was employed as a member in the Phil. Glass Manufacturing Co. on August 27, 1974. Petitioner complained of chest pain and fever for which he consulted Dr. Rodolfo Gonzales. Lorenzo incurred tuberculosis in the course of his employment. The petitioner asked the benefit under Workmen’s Compensation unit, Regional Office IX of the Dept. Of Labor because of his lung disease. However, the petition was dismissed. The petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration but was denied.
Issue:
Whether or not Lorenzo has waived his rights to benefits.
Held:
The Supreme Court ruled that the failure of employer to controvert right of claimant to compensation benefits within the statutory period amounted to waiver of right to controvert the claim. Having filed to controvert the claim timely, the respondent company was thereby considered to have renounced all defenses, such as the non-compensability of the claim. Lorenzo is entitled to benefits.
Related Philippine Law Resources:
Newer Philippine Law Resources:
Additional Law Reading:
BATASnatin The Firm
Latest @ Forums
-
-
- Shema Corporation legal ba?
- In General Discussion
- 5 days, 11 hours ago
-
-
-
- foreclosed property, i need guides please help me
- In I Need A Lawyer!
- 2 weeks, 2 days ago
-
-
-
- i cant access even the demo
- In Law MCQuizzer
- 2 weeks, 2 days ago
-
Popular
- 1
- 2
- 3
SUGGESTED ANSWERS …
ANSWERS TO BAR EXAMINATION QUESTIONS IN POLITICAL LAW ARRANGED BY TOPIC (1990 – 2006) Edited and Arranged by:Silliman University College of Law Batch 2005Updated by:DondeeD’ BAR-Retake 2007 From the ANSWERS TO BAR EXAMINATION QUESTIONS by the UP LAW COMPLEX & PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF LAW SCHO...
Read moreOral Defamation l S…
Kinds and Definition of Slander or Oral Defamation Definition: Speaking of base and defamatory words which tend to prejudice another in his reputation, office, trade, business or means of livelihood Two kinds of oral or verbal defamation: (1) Grave Slander (2) Simple Slander A. Factor...
Read moreArticle I – THE NAT…
Article I – THE NATIONAL TERRITORYThe national territory of the Philippines comprises:1) the Philippine archipelago;2) all other territories over which the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdictionPHILIPPINE ARCHIPELAGO – that body of water studded with islands which is delineated in the Treaty of...
Read moreRandom
- 1
- 2
- 3
Holder in Due Cours…
Holder in Due Course - Negotiable Instruments Sec. 52. What constitutes a holder in due course. - A holder in due course is a holder who has taken the instrument under the following conditions: (a) That it is complete and regular upo...
Read moreAng Ka Yu v. Phoeni…
Ang Ka Yu v. Phoenix Assurance - Insurable Interest 1 CARA 704 Facts: > Ang Ka Yu had a piece of property in his possession. He insured it with Phoenix. > The property was lost, so Ang Ka Yu sought to claim the proceeds. > Phoenix denied ...
Read moreIn a clash of right…
UBFHAI, et al. v. City Mayor of Parañaque, et al., G.R. No. 141010, February 7, 2007 An ordinance of the SB of Parañaque City reclassified two major thoroughfares at BF Homes from residential to commercial. It was questioned by the homeowners as unco...
Read moreFeatured
- 1
- 2
- 3
Right to Strike
SSSEA v. CA – right to strike – At present, in the absence of any legislation in government employees the right to strike, recognizing their right to do so, or regulating the exercise of such right, they are prohibited form striking by express prohi...
Read morePeople vs. Tolentin…
G.R. No. 176385, February 26, 2008 FACTS: On 13 February 1998, three separate informations of Murder and two counts of Frustrated Murder were filed before the RTC against appellants, together with accused Jimmy Trinidad and Arnel Trinidad. The murd...
Read morePerfection Of A Con…
In Oesmer, Jr., et al. v. Paraiso Dev. Corp., G.R. No. 157493, February 5, 2007, a contract to sell was entered into by the owners of a real property. They affixed their signatures but contested its validity later contending that their co-owner had n...
Read more

