BONIFACIA U. PACARRO, PETITIONER, VS. SECRETARY OF LABOR, (COMPENSATION APPEALS AND REVIEW STAFF), WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION AND BUREAU OF PUBLIC SCHOOLS, RESPONDENTS.

This is a petition for
review of the decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission dated October
14, 1975 in WCU Case
No. DSRO-1343 entitled “Bonifacia U. Pacarro vs. Republic of the Philippines [Bureau of Public Schools]” which was
sustained by the Compensation Appeals and Review Staff when it denied
petitioner’s motion for reconsideration in its order dated July 6,
1977.

Since November 21, 1938
until her optional retirement at the age of sixty-two, petitioner Bonifacia U. Pacarro was a grade
school teacher assigned in the Oroquieta City
Division of the Bureau of Public Schools. 
In 1965, she began having frequent coughs and colds which recurred every
time she was exposed to sudden weather changes and heavy work in school.  In 1967, her chest X-ray showed minimal
pulmonary tuberculosis [PTB] for which tablets for medication were
prescribed.  In July, 1972, her illness
worsened.  Wracked with cough, fever and
headache for two weeks despite medication, she was brought to the Cebu TB Pavilion where a second X-ray was taken on July 5, 1972.  It revealed “PTB, moderately advanced on
the right lung and minimal on the left lung.”^[1]
The resident physician, Dr. Rafael A. Garcia, Jr., advised rest and drug
therapy.  Petitioner went on a two-month
sick leave in the month of July, 1972, after which she resumed working until
her optional retirement was approved, effective June 3, 1974.  Her
last sick leave before retiring was from October 18 to 26, 1973. 
For her more than thirty years of service, she was given a lump sum
retirement pay equivalent to five years salary and more than P1,000.00 from the GSIS.^[2]

On September 30, 1974,
petitioner filed a “Notice of Injury or Sickness and Claim for
Compensation” with the Workmen’s Compensation Unit in Dipolog City
against the Division Superintendent of Schools. 
Her claim was not controverted by her
employer, the Bureau of Public Schools.^[3]

On January 8, 1975, the Workmen’s Compensation Unit of the Dipolog Sub-Regional Office issued an award in favor of
petitioner, ordering respondent Republic of the Philippines [Bureau of Public
Schools] to pay petitioner the amount of P6,000.00 representing disability
benefits under Sections 14 and 18 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act; P1,562.90
as medical expense reimbursement under Section 13; as well as P300.00 as
attorney’s fees for petitioner’s counsel and P61.00 to the Commission through
that Unit as award fees pursuant to Section 55.^[4]

On appeal, the Workmen’s Compensation Commission en banc
rendered a decision on October 14, 1975 setting aside the aforesaid award and
dismissing the claim on the ground that while petitioner was admittedly
afflicted with PTB as of July 5, 1972, for which reason she went on a two-month
sick leave, she afterwards returned to work until her retirement on June 3, 1974. 
From this set of facts, the Commission concluded that at the time
petitioner retired, she was not clearly suffering from PTB. “That she had
the illness two years prior to retirement does not mean that she had the same
illness during her retirement for there is no evidence to that effect.  In other words, she did not retire due to any
incapacitating disease; she was not suffering any at the time.  There being no disability, the claimant
should not be entitled to any compensating benefits.  The claimant had retired on the basis of her retirable age and the length of service.”^[5]

Petitioner filed a motion
for reconsideration of the Commission’s decision but said motion was denied by
the Compensation Appeals and Review Staff of the Office of the Secretary of
Labor in its order of July 6, 1977.^[6] Hence, this recourse.

There are two principal
issues presented for our resolution, namely:

[a]    Whether or not petitioner is entitled to
disability benefits and refund of medical expenses after having been paid her
full retirement benefits, considering that at the time of her retirement there
was allegedly no substantial evidence to show that petitioner was still
afflicted with tuberculosis; and,

[b]    Whether or not the decision of respondent
Workmen’s Compensation Commission has become final and executory
in view of petitioner’s alleged failure to timely appeal therefrom.

The fact that petitioner, as a teacher, had to contend with
classroom work, in addition to supervising the school children in gardening and
cleaning the grounds as well as community work which exposed her to all kinds
of elements, and was thereby compelled to
retire, should have been given weight by respondent Commission.  Instead, respondent Commission, joined by the
Republic, capitalized on the fact that after a two-week leave petitioner was
able to resume working and to continue doing so until she retired from the
service under the Optional Retirement Law, thus precluding her claim for
compensation benefits.  This is utterly
untenable.

Contrary to the findings of respondent Commission, there is ample
evidence to support petitioner’s contention that she had not fully recovered
from tuberculosis when she opted for an early retirement on June 3, 1974.  A subsequent X-ray examination made on her on
November 9, 1974 by the same Dr. Garcia showed that although the PTB lesion on
her right lung had healed, there was still the presence of fibrosis which meant
that her resistance to any latent tuberculosis infection was still weak, thus
necessitating “maintenance therapy”.^[7]
This proves that petitioner was not completely cured as of November 9, 1974, or more than four months after
her optional retirement.  Otherwise, no
further treatment would have been prescribed.

Records disclosed that petitioner was only sixty-two years old
when her application for optional retirement was finally approved by her
employer.  That was three years short of
the compulsory age for retirement.  It is
not therefore accurate to state that she had retired on the basis of her retirable age.  She
retired because in her debilitated state, she could no longer cope with the
arduous tasks of a classroom teacher.  If
she were physically able, she would have waited for three years and thus
receive the maximum benefits of the Retirement Law.

Thus, in the case of Hernandez vs. WCC,
No. L-20202, May 31, 1965, 14 SCRA 219, we held that an employee, forced to ask
for retirement ahead of schedule, not because of old age, but principally
because of his weakened bodily condition due to illness contracted in the
course of his employment, should be given compensation for his inability to
work during the remaining days before his scheduled retirement, aside from the
retirement benefits received by him.  And
in subsequent cases, we have consistently ruled that the receipt of optional
retirement pay does not preclude the claimants from enjoying disability
compensation, for the fact that their application for optional retirement has
been approved places beyond doubt their “physical incapacity to render further
efficient service”.^[8]

It is indeed a sad
commentary on respondent Commission’s misplaced zeal that instead of commending
petitioner for her exceptionally dogged determination to continue with her work
of educating the young despite the weakening effects of her illness, it
had the temerity to deny her compensation benefits.  Apparently, respondent is laboring under the
impression that before one can avail herself of disability pay, she must
necessarily be bedridden.

As to the right of
petitioner to claim repayment of her medical expenses, the law is explicit and
unequivocal.  An employer held liable for
disability compensation should also be ordered to provide the employee with
such medical, surgical and hospital services, appliances and supplies as the nature of her debility and the
process of recovery may require and that which will promote her early
restoration to the maximum level of her physical capacity.^[9]

On the second issue, we rule
that the appeal from the decision of respondent Commission to this Court was
seasonably made and the contrary assertion by the Solicitor General is patently
erroneous.

Section 1, Rule 18 of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission Rules
states:

“Time of Appeal.  – Any
party in interest may appeal from any decision or order of the Commission en
banc to the Supreme Court within ten [10] days from receipt of said decision or
order in the manner provided for under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court.”

Section 4, Rule 43 of the Rules of Court in turn provides:

“Period for filing.  –
Appeals from an order, ruling or decision of the x x x; and those from the Court of Industrial Relations, the
Civil Aeronautics Board, the Workmen’s
Compensation Commission, and the Commission on Elections, within a period of
ten [10] days.”

Therefore, with respect
to appeals from respondent Commission, the petition for review must be filed
with the Supreme Court and notice of appeal with the Commission within ten
days, counted from notice of the ruling, order or decision appealed from.

In the case at bar,
petitioner was granted an extension of ten days to file a motion for
reconsideration of the decision disallowing her claim.  She filed the aforesaid motion on the tenth
or last day.  On July 6,
1977, the
Compensation Appeals and Review Staff denied her motion and she received notice
of the denial on August 26, 1977.  On September
5, 1977, or on the
last day of the reglementary period for appeals,
petitioner simultaneously filed a notice of appeal with the Compensation
Appeals and Review Staff and a motion for extension of time to file a petition
for review with this Court.^[10]

The Solicitor General
claims that inasmuch as petitioner had filed her motion for reconsideration on
the final day of the extended period, she should have filed her notice of
appeal on the day following her receipt of the denial order, that is, not later
than August 27, 1977.  We cannot agree.  There being no finding that petitioner’s
motion for reconsideration was merely pro forma, said
pleading effectively tolled the running of the period for perfecting an
appeal.  Consequently, she still had ten
days from August 26, 1977,
or up to September 5, 1977,
to seek recourse in this Tribunal.

WHEREFORE, the decision of respondent Workmen’s
Compensation Commission, subject
to this petition for review, is hereby REVERSED.  The original award made by the Workmen’s
Compensation Unit in WCU Case No. DSRO-1343 granting disability benefits and
medical expense reimbursement to petitioner Bonifacia
U. Pacarro is REINSTATED with the modification that
respondent employer Republic [Bureau of Public Schools] should now pay the
prescribed administrative fees of P61.00 to the present Department of Labor and
the attorney’s fees increased to P600.00.

SO ORDERED.

Gutierrez, Jr., Feliciano, Bidin, and Cortes, JJ.,
concur.

^[1]
Rollo, p. 43

^[2]
Rollo, p. 23

^[3]
Rollo, pp.
24-25

^[4]
Rollo, p. 28

^[5]
Rollo, p. 32

^[6]
Rollo, p. 41

^[7]
Rollo, p. 44. 
See Vda. de Tumolva vs.
WCC, No. L-46167, January 16, 1986,
141 SCRA 78, 84

^[8]
R.A. No. 1616, in relation to Memorandum Circular No. 133, issued October 19, 1967 by the Office of
the President.  See Romero vs.
WCC, No. L-42617, June 30, 1977,
77 SCRA 482; Ybanez vs. WCC, No. L-44123, June 30, 1977, 77 SCRA 501; Sudario vs. Republic, No. L-44088, October 6, 1977, 79 SCRA 337; Espiritu vs. WCC, No. L-42471, August 22, 1978, 84 SCRA 636; Balatero
vs WCC, No. L-44634, January 28, 1980, 95 SCRA 608; Buyco vs. Secretary of Labor, No. L-47276, November 10, 1986, 145 SCRA 361 and Berenguel vs. Republic, No. L-47175, December 15, 1986, 146 SCRA 235

^[9]
Section 13, Workmen’s Compensation Act; Toralde vs.
WCC, No. L-43471, September 30, 1978,
85 SCRA 449 and Biscarra vs. Republic, No.
L-43425, January 22, 1980,
95 SCRA 248

^[10]
Rollo, pp. 2 and 42