372 Phil. 9
PURISIMA, J.:
"After going over the records of the case under consideration, we agree with the decision of the respondent System in denying appellant's claim for additional compensation. Under the ECC Schedule of Compensation, appellant was already awarded the maximum benefits commensurate to the degree of his disability at the time of his retirement from the service. The confinement of appellant at the Philippine General Hospital sometime in January, 1988 due to PTB, minimal with Pulmonary Emphysema, Bilateral, could not be attributed to his employment considering that he retired from the service on June 1, 1985, hence, the risk of his employment aggravating his PTB was unlikely. For any progression of a retired employee's condition after the date of his retirement is no longer within the compensatory coverage of P. D. 626, as amended, since severance of an employee-employer relationship results to the release of the State Insurance Fund from any liability in the event of sickness and resulting disability or death after such retirement or separation from the service. Thus, claim of appellant for additional compensation benefits could not be given favorable consideration."On appeal, the Court of Appeals came out with the assailed decision affirming the disposition of the respondent Commission. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration suffered the same fate.
Petitioner also posed the legal issues:[3]
- Respondent Court erred in finding that Rule XI Section 1 of the Amended Rules on Employees Compensation and the case of FLORANTE E. DALUYON VS. EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION COMMISSION (G. R. No. 85133, 15 October 1992) do not apply.
- Respondent Court erred in finding that the ailment acquired during employment, the continuation and consequent aggravation of the same resulting to confinement in a hospital and evaluation by a physician that his patient was permanently totally disabled is not compensable as Permanent Total Disability because there is no employee-employer relationship.
- Respondent Court erred in finding that the grant of permanent partial disability is sufficient proof that petitioner is still fit for work, and modern medicine may easily heal such ailment.
- Respondent Court erred in finding that since petitioner's ailment has no specific relationship with his work, although he was already granted Permanent Partial Disability benefits, he should not be allowed Permanent Total benefits.
- The Respondent Court erred in finding that liberal interpretation of labor laws does not apply to all cases.
- The Respondent Court erred that the decision of the ECC is supported by substantial evidence.
In a nutshell, petitioner, under the aforestated assignment of errors and the legal issues posited for resolution, faults the Court of Appeals for not adjudging him entitled to his original income benefits claim for Permanent Total Disability and not Permanent Partial Disability as found by the respondent Commission.
- Whether an ailment lasting more than One Hundred Twenty (120) days as provided for by Section 2 (a and b), Rule VII and Section 1 (b), Rule X of the Amended Rules On Employees Compensation should be classified as Permanent Total Disability.
- Whether a work-connected illness, acquired during employment, to which Permanent Partial Disability benefits were granted in 1989 and award of the original claim of Permanent Total Disability benefits denied due to the severance of employee-employer relationship, should be considered as caused by the conditions of work.
"SECTION 2. Period of entitlement. - (a) The income benefit shall be paid beginning on the first day of such disability. If caused by an injury or ill sickness it shall not be paid longer than 120 consecutive days except where injury or sickness still requires medical attendance beyond 120 days but not to exceed 240 days from onset of disability in which case benefit for temporary total disability shall be paid. However, the system may declare the total and permanent status at any time after 120 days of continuous temporary total disability as may be warranted by the degree of actual loss or impairment of physical or mental functions as determined by the System."It is thus contended that the mere inability to perform gainful occupation for a period exceeding 120 days due to his illness or injury does not entitle him (petitioner) to the benefits claimed. Respondent Commission also seeks to deny further liability to the petitioner on account of the non-compensable nature of the illness of the latter, alleging that the confinement of petitioner at the PGH sometime in 1988 due to the same ailment could not be attributed to his employment considering that he retired from the service on June 1, 1985. According to the respondent Commission, the risk of his employment aggravating his PTB was unlikely, for any progression of a retired employee's condition after the date of his retirement is no longer within the compensatory coverage of P. D. 626, as amended, since severance of an employee-employer relationship results in the release of the State Insurance Fund from any liability in the event of sickness and resulting disability or death after such retirement or separation from the service.[4]
"SECTION 2. Disability - (a) A total disability is temporary if as a result of the injury or sickness the employee is unable to perform any gainful occupation for a continuous period not exceeding 120 days, except as otherwise provided for in Rule X of these Rules.Rule XI of the same Amended Rules provide:
(b) A disability is 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 except as otherwise provided for in Rule X of these Rules.
(c) A disability is partial and permanent if as a result of the injury or sickness the employee suffers a permanent partial loss of the use of any part of his body."
"SECTION 1. Condition to entitlement.In GSIS vs. Court of Appeals et al.,[7] the Court held 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 Compensation (which, in a more detailed manner, describes what constitutes temporary total disability), then the subject employee undoubtedly suffers from "permanent total disability" regardless of whether or not he loses the use of any part of his body.
(a) x x x x x x x x x
(b) The following total disabilities shall be considered permanent;
(1) Temporary total disability lasting continuously for more than 120 days, except as otherwise provided for in Rule X hereof;
(2) Complete loss of sight of both eyes;
(3) Loss of two limbs at or above the ankle or wrist;
(4) Permanent complete paralysis of two limbs;
(5) Brain injury resulting in incurable imbecility or insanity; and
(6) Such cases as determined by the System and approved by the Commission."
"We do not find merit in the contention of the Solicitor General, in his comment to this petition, that since the deceased had contracted her sickness five years after retirement when no employer-employee relationship exists, the deceased cannot claim compensation, inasmuch as such employer-employee relationship is the jurisdictional foundation for the recovery of compensation.To hold that the finding of Dr. Leon James Young concerning petitioner's permanent and total disability was useful only for purposes of determining the petitioner's entitlement to hospitalization benefits under Article 185 and 189 of PD. No 626 and therefore has no bearing on the determination of whether petitioner was entitled to permanent total disability under Article 192 of the same Decree is to trivialize the significance of the physicians medical opinion as to the degree of petitioner's ailment. It has been resolved in many cases of similar nature that the doctor's certification as to the nature of claimant's disability may be given credence as he normally, would not make a false certification.[11] And no physician 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.[12]
Such contention rests on a wrong premise. As heretofore stated, the deceased contracted her essential hypertension during her employment and not five years after her retirement. The fact that the essential hypertension of the deceased got worse at the time she was already out of service is without moment. The main consideration for its compensability is that her essential hypertension was contracted during and by reason of her employment; and any non-work related factor that contributed to its aggravation is immaterial."