ITOGON-SUYOC MINES, INC. vs. FRUTO DULAY and
To reimburse to the claimant, thru this Commission, the sum
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION COMMISSION
G.R. No. L-18974 | 1963-09-30
FACTS: Previous to Fruto Dulay’s employment with Itogon-
Suyoc Mines, Inc., Dulay applied for work in the Antamok
Mining Company on October 10, 1950, but was refused
admission into the service by the management because he
was found afflicted with lung ailment, which is: “Far Advanced
PTB, right lung, fibro-caseous with fraction (traction) of the
heart to the right. Beginning infiltrations, left upper lung.”
However, on April 30, 1952, he was allowed to work by the
Itogon-Suyoc Mines after passing the pre-employment physical
examination conducted by Dr. Pellicer, a company physician.
However, during his medical check-up it did not include an X-
ray examination chest.
He worked as mucker performing the following duties, to wit:
(1) to muck and bore holes five feet deep by means of a
stopper machine, weighing 200 pounds more or less and blast
them with dynamites; and (2) to lift timber of varied sizes,
which include some round posts that could hardly be carried by
two persons. His place of work was hot as the company
provided no electric fan for adequate ventilation. He worked
either on the nightshift, starting from 4:00 up to 12:00 p.m. or
the day shift, starting from 7:00 a.m. up to 3:00 p.m.
On April 28, 1954, he was automatically separated from the
employment because he exceeded his vacation leave without
permission from Itogon-Suyco Mines. Later on, Dulay
requested for his reinstatement to the General Superintendent,
and he was readmitted to the employment on May 14, 1954.
On July 7, 1954, he was X-rayed by Dr. Rosa, the company
physician who took the place of Dr. Pellicer, and was
discovered that Dulay was suffering from:
'RL: Fibro-caseous all over.
'LL: Fibroid Lesions LS-3, markedly retracted
mediastinum to the right.
REMARKS: For advanced chronic P.T.B.'
On July 16, 1954, he stopped working at the instance of the
incumbent company physician and received medication from
Itogon-Suyco Mines until September 12, 1955. From August 2
to 30, 1954, inclusive, he paid Dr. Jose Villamil P1.00 daily for
the injections of streptomycin on him. He was X-rayed on
November 3, 1954, but the result revealed 'no apparent radio-
graphic change.' When he sought employment in the Philippine
Engineers' Syndicate on December 18, 1954, he was rejected
because he was found to have been afflicted with 'R.L. Fibro-
caseous lesion all over with retracted mediastinum. L.L.-00." At
the time he was told to stop working by the company physician
due to his illness, he was earning P24.00."
Commissioner Cesareo Perez concluded that Dulay's ailment
was aggravated by the nature of his work and therefore was
compensable. In addition, Perez held that the company had
waived its right to contest the compensability of the disease on
the ground that the company did not submit its employer's
report within the time stated in Section 45 of the Workmen's
Compensation Act (Act No. 3428, as amended).
Accordingly, Perez ordered the company –
1. To pay the claimant, thru this Commission, the sum of TWO
THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED NINETY-FIVE and 20/100
(P2,995.20) PESOS as compensation pursuant to Section 14
of the Act, as amended;
2.
of TWENTY-NINE (P29.00) PESOS which he spent for
medical treatment and to provide him with continuous medical
and hospital services and supplies until his illness is cured or
arrested pursuant to Section 13 of the Act;
3. To pay for Atty’s fee; and
4. To pay the Commission the amount of P35.00 as costs
pursuant to Section 55 of the Act, as amended."
ISSUE: Whether or not Itogon-Suyco Mines should
compensate Dulay.
RULING: The Court held that YES.
Section 2 of the Workmen's Compensation Act provides:
"When an employee suffers personal injury from any accident
arising out of and in the course of his employment, or contracts
tuberculosis or other illness directly caused by such
employment, or either aggravated by or the result of the nature
of such employment, his employer shall pay compensation in
the sums and to the person hereinafter specified. . . ."
The company contended that there is no evidence that Dulay
was under treatment after he was found sick on September 22,
1951, to warrant the conclusion that his illness had been
arrested at the time of his employment then aggravated and
reactivated by the nature of his work.
The Court held that, the fact remains however that Dulay was
given pre-employment physical examination and was obviously
found fit by the company's own physician that is why he was
admitted to work. In fact, Dulay was allowed to work for more
than two years and it was only when he was told to do so by
the company physician that he stopped working. If he was later
found sick of TB, it must be because of the nature of his work
which consisted of boring holes by means of a machine that
weighed 200 pounds and lifting timber of various sizes and
which he did under conditions that could not but aggravate his
illness.
ISSUE: Whether or not Dulay was guilty of bad faith for failure
to disclose his illness at the time he presented himself for
physical examination:
RULING: The Court held that NO.
The decision orders the company "to provide him (Fruto Dulay)
with continuous medical and hospital service and supplies until
his illness is cured or arrested, pursuant to Section 13 of the
Act."
Section 13 does not require employer-employee relationship
as a condition for the employer's liability. As long as the illness
was contracted during the employee's employment, the
employer's obligation subsists. This obligation lasts for as long
as the employee is sick. The limit of 208 weeks, like the limit of
P4,000, refers to the liability of the employer for compensation
(Secs. 12, 14, 16, 18, Act No. 3428, as amended) and has no
reference at all to the employer's liability for medical care (Sec.
13) which lasts during the "period of disability."
Neither is there merit by the company’s argument that Dulay
cannot be said to have "contracted sickness" under Sec. 13 on
the assumption that his lung ailment was aggravated by the
nature of his work. Under Sec. 2 of the law, an employee may
contract tuberculosis "either aggravated by or the result of
the nature of such employment" and since we have shown
that Dulay's TB condition was aggravated by the nature of his
work, the decision correctly provides for his medical
attendance.
VICTORIANO F. CORALES vs. EMPLOYEES'
COMPENSATION COMMISSION and THE GOVERNMENT
SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM
G.R. No. L-44063 | 1978-08-25
FACTS: Victoriano Corales started his government service as
a Classroom teacher at the Saravia Elementary School in
Negros Occidental on June 10, 1932. On June 10, 1946, he
transferred to the Bureau of Lands as Computer and later on
until his retirement on March 26, 1975, as Land Investigator.
His official duties, include the review of applications; inspection
of the land and interview of tenants or applicants to determine
the length of possession and cultivation of the land by the
applicants and predecessors in interests; study of the law
under which a petitioner in court claims the land and
determination of whether all the requisites are complied with;
conduct formal hearing of the arguments, evidence and claim
of conflicting applicants who may appear through counsel and
submission of reports and recommendations thereon to a
higher official.
His medical record shows that he contracted tuberculosis
sometime in September 1965 when he was caught by a heavy
downpour while on his way home from a field work at Lawak,
Mangatarem, Pangasinan. Since then, he frequently suffers
fever, chest and back pains, hoarse voice and coughing with
blood sputum. He was treated by Dr. Ricardo Almario who
diagnosed claimant's ailment as PTB, moderately advanced.
On March 26, 1975, he was compulsorily retired from the
service at the age of 65.
Corales filed with the GSIS Employees' Compensation
"Income Benefits" on August 4, 1975, alleging that he
contracted pulmonary tuberculosis (moderately advanced)
while in the employ of respondent Bureau of Lands resulting in
total and permanent disability for work.
Unfortunately, this was denied by the GSIS Medicare
Employees’ Compensation Department. In which, they state
that, "For Tuberculosis to be compensable, the employee
manifesting this disease should have an occupation involving
close and frequent contact with source or sources of
tuberculous infection by reason of employment: (a) In the
medical treatment or nursing of a person or persons suffering
from tuberculosis, (b) As a laboratory worker, pathologist or
post-mortem workers, where occupation involves working with
material which is a source of tuberculous infection. Your
occupation as Land Investigator of the Bureau of Land does
not involve the risks mentioned above.”
ISSUE: Whether or not Corales be granted his right to
disability compensation.
RULING: The Court held that NO, (Sec. 14, Workmen's
Compensation Act, as amended) because the very term
implies that the compensation must be for loss or
diminution of salary by reason of illness incurred or
aggravated due to his employment. However, Corales is
entitled to reimbursement for his medical expenses with proper
receipts as well as to medical services and appliances as the
nature of his sickness and progress of his recovery may
require and to such rehabilitation services as may be made
available to help him become physically independent and to
develop his mental, vocational and social potential.
The presumption of compensability in favor of Corales remains
unrebutted by the employer. It is to be deplored that this rule
has been ignored time and time again by the Commission,
which has exhibited callous disregard of the command of the
law and the Constitution.
Moreover, Corales has shown by clear and convincing
evidence that he contracted tuberculosis or at least the risk of
contracting said disease had been increased by the conditions
under which he was then working. The personnel officer of the
Bureau of Lands certified that as land investigator, the duties,
among others, of Corales, were: to review of applications for
the issuance of homestead or tree patent; to inspection of the
lands involved in the aforementioned applications: to interview
of tenants or applicants to determined the length of possession
and cultivation of the land by the applicants, etc. From the
nature of Corales' duties, there can be no dispute that indeed
Corales had traveled a lot thereby exposing himself to dust,
heat and cold, not to mention hunger and inevitably to people
who must have been suffering from tuberculosis.
Medical service has it that tuberculosis as an ailment is latent
in man regardless of his age, sex and occupation. When given
favorable conditions, this disease becomes active and
prominent. Some of these favorable conditions are: too much
physical exertion without the corresponding rest; exposure to
excessive heat and cold; lack of good food as to weaken the
body constituents and contact with people suffering from
tuberculosis. All of the foregoing factors were present and
affected Corales while in the pursuit of his assigned tasks as
land investigator, and by good authority we have it that before
tuberculosis may be compensable as a disabling disease,
it must first be shown that long continued exposure to the
peculiar hazards of employment brought on some
pathology in the lung tissue which rendered the employee
peculiarly susceptible to tuberculosis. The degree of
disability as certified to by Dr. Franklin Bravo, a government
physician, and which is not disputed by the parties, is "total and
permanent."
SOLFRIDO FEDILLO vs. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION
COMMISSION and ANTONIO ESTEBAN
G.R. No. L-43642 | 1985-01-17
FACTS: Solfrido Fedillo was employed by Antonio Esteban as
truck driver sometime in the year 1972. He was not known to
have been suffering from any illness at the time of
employment.
Fedillo's job was to drive trucks which were used in hauling
sugar cane. The nature of his work exposed him to heat, rain,
dust and other elements of nature while working in the fields.
Strenuous effort was sometimes called for especially in fixing a
truck whenever it broke down. When busy with his work,
particularly during the milling seasons, Fedillo could not eat his
meals on time.
On 1973, Fedillo experienced body weakness, pain in his
joints, dizziness and coughing at might. He consulted a doctor
about his illness. He was subjected to x-ray examination by Dr.
Araneta and was found suffering from "PTB Moderately
Advanced, Active." As a result, Fedillo was advised to stop
working. Nevertheless, he continued working until October 31,
1973 when he was compelled to stop because of his illness.
Fedillo filed a claim for sickness benefits with the Social
Security System (SSS) with the employer certifying as to the
payment of premiums. The sickness claim was based on "an
illness of PTB advance (sic)." He likewise filed a notice of
sickness and claim for compensation with the Workmen's
Compensation Unit on December 4, 1973. The Notice of
Sickness and Claim for Compensation was transmitted to
WCC by the Office of the Workmen's Compensation Unit on
December 15, 1973 through registered mail.
The claim was not controverted by Esteban, who did not file
any answer to the claim. The Workmen's Compensation Unit
through its Referee Militante, rendered a decision in favor of
Fedillo. However, no benefits under Section 14 of the Act were
awarded.
ISSUE: Whether or not Fedillo is entitled of the benefits.
RULING: The Court held that YES.
It is true that by the very nature of tuberculosis, it is likely that
the Fedillo could not have instantly acquired such an illness.
However, the pre-existence of an illness is not a ground for
disallowance of claims for compensation benefits.
Section 2 of the Workmen's Compensation Act 3428 as
amended, provides: "SEC. 2. Ground for compensation. -
When an employee suffers personal injury from any accident
arising out of and in the course of employment, or contracts
tuberculosis or other illness directly caused by such
employment, or either aggravated by or the result of the nature
of such employment, his employer shall pay compensation in
the sums and to the persons hereinafter provided . . ."
Thus, under the Act, injury of sickness is compensable - (1) as
personal injury from accident arising out of and in the course of
employment, (2) as illness directly caused by the employment,
(3) as sickness which is the result of the nature of the
employment, and (4) as sickness aggravated by the nature of
the employment.
Fedillo's case falls under the rule on aggravation, to wit: That
where claimant's disabling disease was aggravated by the
nature of his work, he is entitled to compensation under the
Act. Thus, if employment contributes to the development of the
disease even in a small degree, the claim is compensable and
the claimant under the Workmen's Compensation Act is
relieved of showing the burden of causation due to the legal
presumption of compensability in his favor.
From the nature of Fedillo's duties, there is no doubt that his
working conditions aggravated his ailment. Medical science
has it that tuberculosis is an ailment latent in persons
regardless of age, sex, and occupation. When given favorable
conditions, this disease becomes active and prominent. Some
of these favorable conditions are: too much physical exertion
without the corresponding rest; exposure to excessive heat
and cold, lack of good food as to weaken the body constituents
and contact with people suffering from pulmonary tuberculosis.
These conditions, save perhaps for the last, have been found
present in the case at bar, thereby weakening Fedillo's
resistance to any latent tuberculosis infection or reactivating
the same. The compensability of Fedillo's illness cannot be
denied.
Esteban argued that no x-ray, no physical examination of
petitioner and no evaluation by the Workmen's Compensation
Commission physician was made.
In San Valentin v. Employees' Compensation Commission, the
Court held that in workmen's compensation cases, the strict
rules of evidence are not applicable. In testing the evidence on
the relation between the injury or disease and the employment,
probability and not certainty is the touchstone. To be
compensable it is enough that the hypothesis on which the
workmen's claim is based is probable. The substantial
evidence rule and not the preponderance of evidence rule is
followed in the determination of compensability of an injury or
illness, to due effect to the social justice purposes of the law.
The physician's report submitted by Fedillo taken with the
Fedillo's sworn statement and the claim for SSS sickness
benefits, the uncontroverted claim for workmen's compensation
benefits, and the undisputed fact that he had to stop working
because of sickness, suffices to substantiate the claim for
compensation. The report of the attending physician was made
part of the record and there is no showing that the same is
false or erroneous.
Section 49 of the Workmen's Compensation Act itself provides:
"SEC. 49. Procedure. . . . the Commissioner may receive as
evidence and use as proof of any fact in dispute the following
matters; in addition to sworn testimony presented at open
hearing:
"(1) Reports of attending examining physician, . . ."
Thus, it should be given credence to the findings of Dr. Araneta
in the light of the other corroborative evidence.
Moreover, the Court held that an x-ray or some other
laboratory report is not necessarily an indispensable
prerequisite to compensation. The physician's report does not
require for credibility that the x-ray or laboratory findings be
attached thereto. Their absence in the physician's report will
not invalidate the diagnosis appearing therein. Moreover, from
the attending physician's report it can be logically inferred that
a previous x-ray examination was made, otherwise, the
physician could not have arrived at his diagnosis of the illness.
Finally, the asserts entitlement to compensation under Section
14 of the Workmen's Compensation Act for loss of earning
capacity from the time he was forced to stop working due to his
work-connected illness. The circumstances warrant the
granting of the same. The object of the law in allowing
compensation during temporary disability under Sec.14 is to
compensate the employee for what he might have earned
during the period of treatment for his injury. In the case at bar,
the employee was forced to stop working October 31, 1973
and was, from then on, under treatment. He was unable to
return to work. He thus suffered loss of earning capacity from
said date entitling him to compensation under Sec. 14 for
temporary total disability.
Thus, Esteban is ordered to pay to Fedillo under Sections 14
and 18 of the Act, as compensation, the sum of SIX
THOUSAND (P6,000.00) PESOS;
PAZ L. MAKABALI vs. EMPLOYEES' COMPENSATION
COMMISSION, GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE
SYSTEM (MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND CULTURE)
G.R. No. L-51533 | 1983-11-29
FACTS: Paz L. Makabali served as classroom teacher at the
Del Pilar Central School, San Fernando, Pampanga, since
1946 until she retired on August 21, 1975 under the disability
retirement plan (R.A. 660) at the age of sixty. The records
disclose that as per physician's (Dr. Benicio Torralba)
certification, Makabali's illness started in 1971 as headache
and blurring vision.
On August 24, 1972, Makabali, while teaching her class
collapsed with the back of her head hitting the floor.
Purificacion P. Bondoc and Dominador T. Bondoc, co-
teachers, who happened to be in the adjoining classroom,
heard the commotion, and immediately went to see what was
happening. Upon seeing her lying on the floor in a semi-
conscious condition with face upward and being surrounded by
her pupils, they rushed her to the Makabali Clinic, where she
was examined by a doctor and given aid. On the following day,
she reported for duty and resumed teaching, but she
complained of some pains in the back of her head and also her
eyes. After the incident, she often complained of recurring
headache and painful eyes.
Due to this ailment, Makabali was forced to retire on August
21, 1975 under the disability retirement plan (R.A. 660) at the
age of sixty - five years short of the compulsory retirement age
of sixty-five. Subsequent to her retirement, Makabali herein
filed on June 19, 1976, her claim for disability benefits under
P.D. No. 626, as amended, with the GSIS for having
contracted glaucoma during her employment as classroom
teacher at the Del Pilar Central School, San Fernando,
Pampanga, from 1946 to 1975. However, GSIS denied her
claim on the ground that her ailment, glaucoma, is not an
occupational disease taking into consideration the nature of
her particular work. Wherein, the ECC sustained the decision
of GSIS.
ISSUE: Whether or not Makabali should be granted the
disability benefits under PD 626.
RULING: The Court held that NO.
In line with the doctrine laid down in Corales vs. ECC, et al. the
question of compensability of Makabali's ailment hinges on the
approximate, if not the exact, point in time when she
contracted such ailment, which determines the law applicable
in the instant case.
It is indubitable that Makabali's ailment diagnosed as glaucoma
supervened in the course of her employment. This was even
admitted by GSIS when it denied Makabali's request for
reconsideration. Makabali entered the government service in
1946, and it was only in 1971 or after a period of almost 25
years that her ailment became manifest as headache and
blurring vision. Apparently, it was aggravated in 1972 when
she collapsed while teaching, with the back part of her head
(cerebellum) hitting the floor, after which she complained of
recurring headache and painful eyes.
The findings of ECC's Medical Officer also indicated that
Makabali's ailment is glaucoma - primary, chronic simple, wide-
angle type. However, while the ECC Medical Officer correctly
diagnosed Makabali's ailment as such, her findings (which was
the basis of the ECC decision) on the predisposing factors of
Makabali's disease were actually those of another type of
glaucoma referred to as the chronic congestive, narrow-angle
type. The findings of the ECC Medical Officer state that
"among the predisposing factors are vasomotor and emotional
instability, hyperopia and especially heredity" (ibid).
Medical authorities state: "Two well-defined types of primary
glaucoma exist which differ from each other in the type of
patient affected, then clinical course and symptomatology, and
in their prognosis and treatment - closed-angle and simple
glaucoma. As a general rule, the first type is characterized by
sudden episodic subacute attacks of raised tension, the most
notable features of which are a diminution of vision and the
subjective appearance of halos caused by corneal oedema.
From the less severe of these attacks the eye may seem to
recover to a considerable extent, but subsequent episodes
tend to involve a permanent raising of the tension (chronic
congestive glaucoma) which may result in blindness (absolute
glaucoma) or an acute attack may abolish vision. The second
type, on the other hand, develops slowly, quietly and
insidiously over many years with a characteristic triad of
symptoms - raised tension, typical field defects and cupping of
the disc - until in the 'absolute' stage the eye become intensely
hard, all vision is lost and the disc develops a deep atrophic
cup.
"The clinical course of simple glaucoma is characteristic. No
symptoms are generally experienced although mild headache
and eyeaches may occur. An observant person may notice a
defect in the visual field; while reading and close work often
present increasing difficulties due to accomodative failure
owing to pressure upon the ciliary muscle and its nerve supply.
An increase in the strength of presbyopic glasses is therefore
often required. On the whole, however, the disease is so
insidious that it is often not noticed until the vision of one eye is
almost lost and that of the other seriously impaired, when It
may be discovered only by accident"
Significantly, Makabali experienced headache and blurring
vision in 1971. On August 24, 1972, after she collapsed with
the back of her head hitting the floor, she often complained of
recurring headache and painful eyes. In 1976, when she was
examined by Dr. Benicio Torralba and Dr. Romeo Galang she
already lost one eye due to absolute glaucoma (last stage of
primary glaucoma), and another eye seriously impaired due to
primary simple chronic glaucoma.
It is also important to note that in the instant case, Makabali
had served the government as an elementary school teacher
for almost 29 years prior to her disability retirement. She spent
more than half of her teaching services in the barrio of San
Rafael, Mexico Pampanga, which according to the certification
of its Barrio Captain, Julian Quillar, executed on May 25, 1979,
is still without electricity.
Only a handful of public elementary school teachers are
fortunate enough to be assigned in urban areas where the
working conditions are comparatively much better than those in
the rural areas. A large majority of public elementary school
teachers, as in the case of the petitioner, work in remote
places such as sitios and barrios under poor working
conditions. Thus, the daily task of conducting classes (normally
composed of 40 to 50 pupils in urban areas and up to 70 pupils
in rural areas) in an atmosphere that is, by any standard, not
conducive to learning becomes even more physically taxing to
the teachers. Tremendous amount of paper work during and
after office hours (from correcting examination papers,
assignments, school projects and reports to writing lesson
plans and the computation and recording of grades) can be
very physically draining especially to the senior members of
the teaching profession such as the petitioner. Such and other
related school activities of a teacher, aggravated by
substandard, if not adverse, working conditions, give rise to
increased tension, if not emotional and psychological
disturbance on the part of the teachers. This is especially true
in the case of public elementary school teachers whose pupils,
being of tender age and immature, need to be disciplined and
to be taught good manners and right conduct, as well as to be
assisted in their formal school lessons.
Medical experts report that "glaucoma is a symptomatic
condition, not a disease sui generis. The characteristic physical
sign is increased in intra-ocular pressure. Thus, a rise in blood
pressure in the capillaries usually associated with states of
congestion causes a raised ocular tension owing to the
increased volume of the dilated vessels and the increased
transudation of fluid into the chambers of the eye."
According to the certification issued by Dr. Delfin Rosales,
Makabali's attending physician in the Philippine Eye Research
Institute at the Philippine General Hospital, "her work and the
strain on her eyes could have contributed significantly to
aggravating the glaucoma she is suffering right now."
WE must not also neglect to mention the fact that public
elementary school teachers are the lowest paid government
workers, considering the nature and importance of the services
they render. They are the most reliable and dedicated public
servants being constantly called upon by officials of the local
and national government to assist in various extra-curricular
and civic activities which contribute to the welfare of the
community and the country. Their responsibility in molding the
values and character of the young generations of the country,
cannot be overestimated.
It is therefore patent that Makabali's ailment had its onset
earlier than when she started to have headache and blurring
vision - after serving for about twenty-five (25) years as a
public school teacher. According to the above-quoted medical
authorities, "the disease is so insidious that it is often not
noticed until the vision of one-eye is almost lost and that of the
other seriously impaired, when it may be discovered by
accident." It was the incident on August 24, 1972, wherein she
accidentally banged the rear portion of her head (cerebellum)
on the floor that led to the discovery of her ailment - long
before the effectivity of the New Labor Code.
Consequently, the governing law in the instant case is the
Workmen's Compensation Act, as amended, and not P.D. No.
626, as amended.
Makibali’s claim having accrued prior to the New Labor Code,
the presumption of compensability, the principle of
aggravation, the award of attorney's fees and the payment of
administrative fees must be observed and applied. And the
Employees' Compensation Commission as the successor of
the defunct Workmen's Compensation Commission is duty
bound to observe and apply the foregoing principles in passing
upon workers's compensation."
Under Section 44 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, a
presumption of compensability is established, although
rebuttable by substantial evidence to the contrary. And this
Court ruled that, the presumption of compensability places
upon the employer the burden of establishing the contrary by
substantial evidence. As there was no evidence presented by
the employer to rebut the presumption, there can therefore be
no occasion for respondent Commission to absolve the
deceased's employer. The presumption of compensability
becomes conclusive.
And, "the cause of the ailment is immaterial; what is important
is that it occurred or was aggravated in the course of
employment" “It then becomes unquestionable that once the
illness supervened at the time of the employment, there is a
rebuttable presumption that such illness arose out of the
employment or was at least aggravated by such employment"
Moreover, in Calvero vs. ECC, et al., this Court ruled that the
presumption of compensability established by law, could not be
overcome by the opinion of the ECC Medical Officer that there
was no causal connection between the ailment and claimant's
employment nor was the risk of contracting it increased by the
working conditions.
The Ministry of Education and Culture is ordered to pay
Makabali the sum of P12,000 as disability compensation; to
reimburse Makabali her medical and hospital expenses duly
supported by proper receipts; and to furnish Makabali
rehabilitation services including medical surgical or hospital
treatment as well as appliances to help restore her eyesight
and become physically independent.
SEAGULL MARITIME CORP. and SEAGIANT
SHIPMANAGEMENT CO. LTD., vs. JAYCEE DEE and
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION,
G.R. No. 165156 | 2007-04-02
FACTS: In 1999, Jaycee Dee was employed as an able-
bodied seaman by Seagiant Ship Management Co. Ltd.,
through the assistance of local manning agent Seagull
Maritime Corporation. He was assigned to the vessel M/V
Castor.
On May 3, 2000, a passing ship collided with M/V Castor while
it was berthed in Hamburg, Germany. Its portable gangway got
jammed between the other ship's walls and the shore rail.
Then, it suddenly moved back to the berth. Because of these
rapid movements, Dee's left foot was pinned between the
ship's two metal beams and was crushed.
After initial treatment at a German hospital, Dee was
repatriated back to the Philippines to receive medical
treatment. He was examined and treated in several hospitals
and clinics. He was operated on twice (application of pin in
May 2000 and removal of pin in August 2000) and underwent
eight months of physical therapy.
Despite the treatment, Dee continued to suffer from severe
pain and difficulty in moving and weight-bearing on the left foot
while ambulating. As a result of his condition, Dee filed a
complaint in the NLRC against Seagiant Ship Management Co.
for the payment of permanent total disability benefits
amounting to US$60,000.
Seagiant Ship Management Co. interposed the defense that
Dee's condition could still be remedied by a "triple arthrodesis"
operation. They were thus surprised when he rejected it. They
also vehemently opposed the amount of the claim. They
argued that the company-designated physician, Dr. Albert M.
Manalang, characterized Dee's injuries as closest to "complete
immobility of an ankle joint in normal position. In the POEA
standard employment contract, such injury was rated with
impediment grade no. 11, compensable by US$7,465.
Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Seagiant Ship Management Co.
However, on appeal the NLRC set aside, and another entered
in its stead, declaring Dee's disability as permanent and total.
ISSUE: Whether or not Dee’s injury was confined only to his
left foot, and thus his disability is not total, but only partial.
RULING: The Court held that Dee’s disability is total.
The relevant provision of the POEA Standard Employment
Contract is Section 20(B). The POEA Standard Employment
Contract recognizes the prerogative of the seafarer to request
a second opinion and, for this purpose, to consult a physician
of his choice. In case of disagreement between the
assessments of the company-designated physician and the
seafarer's doctor of choice, they may agree to refer the
seafarer to a third doctor. In such a case, the third doctor's
assessment shall be final and binding on both the employer
and the seafarer.
It was therefore not erroneous at all for the NLRC and Court of
Appeals to base their decisions on the assessment of Dee's
chosen physicians, Dr. Meriales and Dr. Bundoc, specially
since their conclusion was arrived at only after a consideration
of the medical findings of Dr. Manalang, the company-
designated physician.
The medical certificate issued by Dr. Manalang:
This is in reference to Seaman/AB Jaycee Dee who was
repatriated due to fractured left foot. Patient was seen and re-
evaluated by our Orthopedic Surgeon. He was diagnosed to
have Traumatic Arthritis Subtalar joint (Talonavicular
Talocalcaneal and Calcaneocuboid joint) left foot as a result of
previous traumatic injury (Talar and Calcaneal Fracture with
Alonavicular Dislocation).
Presently, patient has severe pain over the subtalar joint with
difficulty in weight bearing on the left foot while
ambulating. The proposed Triple Arthrodesis, which might
eliminate, relieve and stabilized left foot for functional
weight bearing and ambulation was rejected by the
seaman.
Although there is no guarantee that he will be able to return
to his previous strenuous work, he might be able to walk
for activity of daily living with a less painful or more
comfortable left foot.
Based on these findings, we are giving Disability Grade 11
for Mr. Dee ($50,0000.00 x 14.93%) = $7465.00).
Significantly, Dr. Manalang's medical findings did not differ
from those of the other doctors consulted by Dee. Essentially,
he shared their opinion that the "triple arthrodesis" operation
could not guarantee the restoration of Dee’s former physical
condition. His pronouncement that all that the operation might
do is to enable Dee to walk for daily activities with a less
painful or more comfortable left foot insinuated that Dee's
disability was permanent. His medical opinion could be safely
interpreted to mean that, as a result of the injury, Dee would no
longer be able to perform strenuous activities such as the
rigorous duties of a seaman.
It is not surprising why Dr. Manalang's conclusion as to how
much Dee should receive as disability benefit was at odds with
his own findings. The doctor, as the company-designated
physician, must have downplayed the compensation due to
Dee; the company, after all, expected that of him. In this light, it
is thus not difficult to understand why the seafarer is given the
option by the POEA Standard Employment Contract to seek a
second opinion from his preferred physician.
Disability is intimately related to one's earning capacity. The
test to determine its gravity is the impairment or loss of one's
capacity to earn and not its mere medical significance.
Permanent total disability means disablement of an employee
to earn wages in the same kind of work or work of a similar
nature that he was trained for or accustomed to perform, or
any kind of work which a person of his mentality and
attainment can do. It does not mean state of absolute
helplessness but inability to do substantially all material acts
necessary to the prosecution of a gainful occupation without
serious discomfort or pain and without material injury or danger
to life. In disability compensation, it is not the injury per se
which is compensated but the incapacity to work.
Although Dee's injury was undeniably confined to his left foot
only, we cannot close our eyes, as Seagiant Ship Management
Co. would like us to, to the inescapable impact of Dee’s injury
on his capacity to work as a seaman. In their desire to escape
liability from Dee’s rightful claim, Seagiant Ship Management
Co. denigrated the fact that even if Dee insists on continuing
to work as a seaman, no profit-minded employer will hire him.
His injury erased all these possibilities.
SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSION and SOCIAL SECURITY
SYSTEM vs. COURT OF APPEALS and JOSE RAGO
G.R. No. 152058 | 2004-09-27
FACTS: Jose Rago worked as an electrician for Legend
Engineering. On 1 December 1993, at about 6:15 p.m., while
working on the ceiling of a building, he stepped on a weak
ceiling joist. The structure gave way and he crashed into the
corridor twelve feet below. The x-rays taken that day revealed
that he had a (1) marked compression fracture of L1 vertebra
without signs of dislocation and bone destruction; and (2) slight
kyphosis at the level of L1 vertebrae, with the alignment of the
spine still normal. He was confined at the Perpetual Succour
Hospital in Cebu City for 24 days from 1 December 1993 to 24
December 1993, and, thereafter, he was confined in his home
from 25 December 1993 to 25 August 1994.
On 20 May 1994, Rago filed a claim for permanent partial
disability with the Cebu City office of the SSS. Since he had
only 35 monthly contributions, he was granted only a lump sum
benefit. He made additional premium contributions on 6
November 1995, and sought the adjustment of his approved
partial disability benefits from lump sum to monthly payments.
The adjustment was resolved in his favor on 18 October 1995.
On 9 November 1995, Rago filed a claim for Employee's
Compensation (EC) sickness benefit, which was supported by
an x-ray report dated 1 December 1993. This was approved for
a maximum of 120 days to cover the period of illness from 1
December 1993 to 30 March 1994.
On 7 June 1996, Rago filed another claim to convert his SSS
disability to EC disability. Again, it was resolved in his favor on
14 June 1996.
On 16 June 1998, Rago claimed for the extension of his EC
partial disability. A rating of 50% OB (of the body) was granted
corresponding to the maximum benefit allowed under the
Manual on Ratings of Physical Impairment.
Thereafter, Rago filed several requests for the adjustment of
his partial disability to total disability. This time, his requests
were denied by the SSS. The denial was based on the medical
findings of the SSS that he was not totally prevented from
engaging in any gainful occupation.
Rago filed with the Social Security Commission a petition for
total permanent disability benefits. However, in its resolution,
the SSC denied Rago’s petition. However, when Rago
appealed in the Court of Appeals, the CA reversed and set
aside the decision of the SSC.
ISSUE: Whether or not SSC should grant Rago’s request to
convert his permanent partial disability to permanent total
disability.
RULING: The Court held that YES.
It is evidently clear from the recitals of the assailed decision
some indicia of Rago's state of permanent total disability. To
emphasize, he was granted sickness benefit for a maximum
period of 120 days from December 1, 1993 to March 30, 1994.
Then he was awarded lump sum permanent partial disability
benefits paid on June 15, 1994, which was then adjusted on
October 18, 1995 to monthly pension benefit covering the
period of 30 months from May 20, 1994 to October 1996.
More, the permanent partial disability benefit was extended for
another eight (8) months from July 3, 1998 to February 1999,
all in all covering a period of 38 months. If temporary total
disability lasting continuously for more than 120 days is
deemed total and permanent, it is not therefore amiss to
consider the payment of permanent partial disability benefits
for 38 months as recognition of permanent total disability.
Award of permanent partial disability benefits for 19 months
was considered by the Supreme Court as an acknowledgment
that the awardee was suffering from permanent total disability.
The test of whether or not an employee suffers from
permanent total disability is a showing of the capacity of the
employee to continue performing his work notwithstanding the
disability he incurred. The cited radiologic report under date of
February 26, 1999 is demonstrative of the fact that Rago is still
in a state which at the time of the taking deters him from
performing his job or any such related function. It is evident
that the pain caused to Rago by his injuries still persists even
after more than 5 years when the accident occurred on
December 1, 1993. The disability caused thereby which had
earlier been diagnosed as permanent partial had possibly
became permanent total.
Moreover, prior payment of compensation benefits for
permanent partial disability may not foreclose his right to
compensation benefits for permanent total disability.
Otherwise, the social justice policy underlying the enactment of
labor laws would lose its meaning.
Stated otherwise, the test of whether or not an employee
suffers from 'permanent total disability' is a showing of the
capacity of the employee to continue performing his work
notwithstanding the disability he incurred. Thus, if by reason of
the injury or sickness he sustained, the employee is unable to
perform his customary job for more than 120 days and he does
not come within the coverage of Rule X of the Amended Rules
on Employees Compensability (which, in a more detailed
manner, describes what constitutes temporary total disability),
then the said employee undoubtedly suffers from 'permanent
total disability' regardless of whether or not he loses the use of
any part of his body.
We further reiterate that disability should be understood less
on its medical significance than on the loss of earning capacity.
Permanent total disability means disablement of an employee
to earn wages in the same kind of work, or work of similar
nature that he was trained for or accustomed to perform, or
any kind of work which a person of his mentality and
attainment could do. It does not mean absolute helplessness.
Moreover, a person's disability may not manifest fully at one
precise moment in time but rather over a period of time. It is
possible that an injury which at first was considered to be
temporary may later on become permanent or one who suffers
a partial disability becomes totally and permanently disabled
from the same cause.
With this, SSS and SSC additional arguments that the x-ray
reports lacked a physician's finding that Rago could no longer
work and that Mr. Cabrero's affidavit attested to the contrary
lose persuasive worth. X-ray reports and its confirmation by a
physician are simply appraised for their evidentiary value and
are not considered as indispensable prerequisites to
compensation.[37] Even then, the three x-ray reports submitted
by Rago clearly show the degenerative condition of his injury.
Clearly, Rago is entitled to permanent total disability benefits.

Caution should be taken against a too strict interpretation of

the rules lest the constitutional mandate of social justice policy
calls for a liberal and sympathetic approval of the pleas of
disabled employees like herein petitioner. Compassion for him
is not a dole out. It is a right.

The Court of Appeals correctly observed that Rago's injury

made him unable to perform any gainful occupation for a
continuous period exceeding 120 days. The SSS had granted
Rago sickness benefit for 120 days and, thereafter, permanent
partial disability for 38 months. Such grant is an apparent
recognition by the SSS that his injury is permanent and total as
we have pronounced in several cases. This is in conformity
with Section 2 (b), Rule VII of the Amended Rules on
Employees Compensation which defines a disability to be total
and permanent if, as a result of the injury or sickness, the
employee is unable to perform any gainful occupation for a
continuous period exceeding 120 days, and Section 1, b (1) of
Rule XI of the same Amended Rules which provides that a
temporary total disability lasting continuously for more than 120
days, shall be considered permanent.

In Vicente vs. Employees Compensation Commission, the

Court laid down the litmus test and distinction between
Permanent Total Disability and Permanent Partial Disability, to
wit:

While 'permanent total disability' invariably results in an

employee's loss of work or inability to perform his usual work,
'permanent partial disability,' on the other hand, occurs when
an employee loses the use of any particular anatomical part of
his body which disables him to continue with his former work.

VICENTE VS ECC
Domingo Vicente was formerly employed as a nursing
attendant at the Veterans Memorial Medical Center in
Quezon City. At the age of forty-five, and after having
rendered more than twenty-five years of government
service, he applied for optional retirement under the
provisions of Section 12(c) of Republic Act No. 1616,
giving as reason therefor his inability to continue working
as a result of his physical disability. The petitioner
likewise filed with the Government Service Insurance
System (GSIS) an application for “income benefits claim
for payment” under Presidential Decree (PD) No. 626, as
amended. Both applications were accompanied by the
necessary supporting papers, among them being a
“Physician’s Certification” issued by the petitioner’s
attending doctor. The petitioner’s application for income
benefits claim payment was granted but only for
permanent partial disability (PPD) compensation or for a
period of nineteen months
His ailments: Osteoarthritis, multiple; Hypertensive
Cardiovascular Disease; Cardiomegaly; and Left
Ventricular Hypertrophy;
ISSUE:
Whether or not the petitioner suffers from permanent
total disability.
HELD:
YES. The decision of the respondent Employees’
Compensation Commission (ECC) was set aside.
RATIO:
Laid down diff of PTD and PPD
It may therefore be inferred from the Court's
pronouncements that while "permanent total disability"
invariably results in an employee's loss of work or
inability to perform his usual work, "permanent partial
disability," on the other hand, occurs when an employee
loses the use of any particular anatomical part of his
body which disables him to continue with his former
work. Stated otherwise, the test of whether or not an
employee suffers from "permanent total disability" is a
showing of the capacity of the employee to continue
performing his work notwithstanding the disability he
incurred. Thus, if by reason of the injury or sickness he
sustained, the employee is unable to perform his
customary job for more than 120 days and he does not
come within the coverage of Rule X of the Amended
Rules on Employees Compensability (which, in a more
detailed manner, describes what constitutes temporary
total disability), then the said employee undoubtedly
suffers from "permanent total disability" regardless of
whether or not he loses the use of any part of his body.
[T]he petitioner’s permanent total disability is established
beyond doubt by several factors and circumstances.
Noteworthy is the fact that from all available indications,
it appears that the petitioner’s application for optional
retirement on the basis of his ailments had been
approved. Considering that the petitioner was only 45
years old when he retired and still entitled, under good
behavior, to 20 more years in service, the approval of his
optional retirement application proves that he was no
longer fit to continue in his employment. For optional
retirement is allowed only upon proof that the employee-
applicant is already physically incapacitated to render
sound and efficient service.
The sympathy of law on social security is towards its
beneficiaries and the law by its own terms, requires a
construction of utmost liberality in its favor.
Further, the appropriate physicians of the petitioner's
employer, the Veterans Memorial Medical Center,
categorically certified that the petitioner was classified
under permanent total disability. On this score, "the
doctor's certification as to the nature of the claimant's
disability may be given credence as he normally would
not make a false certification. And, "[N]o physician in his
right mind and who is aware of the far-reaching and
serious effect that his statements would cause on a
money claim filed with a government agency, would
issue certifications indiscriminately without even minding
his own interests and protection."17
The fact that the petitioner was granted benefits
amounting to the equivalent of twenty-three months
shows that the petitioner was unable to perform any
gainful occupation for a continuous period exceeding
120 days. This kind of disability is precisely covered by
Section 2(b), Rule VII of the Amended Rules on
Employees' Compensability which we again quote, to wi