Grave abuse of discretion; labor disputes
Grave abuse of discretion connotes a capricious and whimsical exercise of
judgment, done in a despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility,
the character of which being so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of
positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined by or to act
at all in contemplation of law.[1]
In labor disputes, grave abuse of discretion may be ascribed to the NLRC when, inter alia, its findings and the conclusions reached thereby are not supported by substantial evidence, or that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion. In a seafarer’s claim for disability, the onus probandi falls on the seafarer to establish his claim for disability benefits by the requisite quantum of evidence to justify the relief sought.[2]
[1] See Bahia Shipping Services, Inc. v. Hipe, Jr., G.R. No. 204699,
November 12, 2014, citing Ayungo v. Beamko Shipmanagement Corporation, G.R.
No. 203161, February 26, 2014.
In labor disputes, grave abuse of discretion may be ascribed to the NLRC when, inter alia, its findings and the conclusions reached thereby are not supported by substantial evidence, or that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion. In a seafarer’s claim for disability, the onus probandi falls on the seafarer to establish his claim for disability benefits by the requisite quantum of evidence to justify the relief sought.[2]
[1] See Bahia Shipping Services, Inc. v. Hipe, Jr., G.R. No. 204699,
November 12, 2014, citing Ayungo v. Beamko Shipmanagement Corporation, G.R.
No. 203161, February 26, 2014.
[2] See id.; citations omitted.