CONSOLACION DIMAANO, PETITIONER, VS. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION AND THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES (BUREAU OF PUBLIC SCHOOLS), RESPONDENTS.

This is a petition for review of the decision dated January 7, 1976 of the Workmen’s
Compensation Commission in RO6-WCC Case No. 129464, affirming the order dated November 10, 1975 of the Acting
Referee, Estratonico S. Añano of the Workmen’s Compensation Unit,
Naga City, dismissing the claim of claimant Consolacion Dimaano for lack of
merit.

Petitioner Consolacion Dimaano was a former classroom teacher of
the Bureau of Public Schools assigned to barrios in Calabanga, Camarines Sur,
with a monthly salary of three hundred forty nine (P349.00) pesos.  She alleged that while employed as such
public school teacher, she contracted an ailment diagnosed as chronic rheumatic
arthritis with sub-acute exacerbation, hypertension, supposedly caused by
metabolic mental stress due to the nature of her employment or aggravated
thereby, and on account of which, she was allegedly forced to retire from the
government service in 1974 at the age of 64 (Notice of Injury or Sickness and
Claim for Compensation dated March 20, 1975, p. 78, rollo).  Dr. Pablo B. Tordilla of Calabanga, Camarines
Sur, testified on petitioner’s aforesaid alleged illness.

On March 20, 1975,
petitioner filed a notice of injury or sickness and claim for compensation with
Regional Office No. 6 (later changed to Regional Office No. 5) of the Workmen’s
Compensation Unit, Department of Labor, Naga City,
docketed as R06-WC Case No. 129464.

On November 10, 1975,
Acting Referee Estratonico S. Añano of the Compensation Task Force at said
Regional Office issued an order dismissing petitioner’s claim for lack of
merit.  Petitioner filed a motion for
reconsideration of said order, which motion was denied by the said acting
referee on December 10, 1975.  Thereupon, the case was elevated to the
Workmen’s Compensation Commission, Quezon City,
which affirmed the order of dismissal earlier issued by Regional Office No. 5.

From the affirmation of the order of dismissal by the Workmen’s
Compensation Commission, petitioner filed with this Court the instant petition
for review.  The grounds relied upon by
the petitioner are as follows:

“FIRST, THE WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION EN BANC ERRED IN
FAILING TO CONSIDER THE ACCIDENT THAT RESULTED IN THE AMPUTATION OF CLAIMANT’S
LEFT MIDDLE FINGER DURING EMPLOYMENT WITH RESPONDENT.

SECOND, THE WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION EN BANC ERRED IN
DISMISSING THE CASE SOLELY FOR THE REASON THAT CHRONIC RHEUMATIC ARTHRITIS WITH
SUB-ACUTE EXACERBATION, HYPERTENSION, ARE NOT CAUSED BY THE NATURE OF
CLAIMANT’S EMPLOYMENT”(p. 2, Petition).

Apropos the first assigned error, the Workmen’s Compensation
Commission did not err in not taking into account the supposed accident which
allegedly resulted in the amputation of
petitioner’s left middle finger, since the supposed accident, which allegedly
took place in 1969 was not even mentioned by the petitioner in her notice of
injury or sickness and claim for compensation filed with the Workmen’s
Compensation Unit, Regional Office No. 5, Naga City on March 20, 1975.

To be sure, WE are
quoting the following entry in petitioner’s aforesaid notice of injury or
sickness and claim for compensation:

“13.  Nature and cause of injury/illness:  Chronic Rheumatic Arthritis with Sub-Acute exacerbations, hypertension
caused by metabolic mental stress.

“x x
x x x.

(sgd.)
[Mrs.] Consolacion S. Dimaano

Calabanga, Cam.
Sur”

As aptly observed by the
Solicitor General, “considering, then, that
petitioner herself did not mention the alleged accident in her Notice of Injury
or Sickness as one of the basis for her claim for disability compensation
against the government, the Workmen’s Compensation Commission rightly refused
to consider said accident in its decision of January 7, 1976.  ‘It
is a well-known principle in procedure that courts have no jurisdiction or
power to decide a question not in issue” (Lim Toco vs. Go Fay, 80 Phil.
166; Cebu Portland Cement Co. vs. Tereso Dumon, L-26738, Nov. 29, 1974, 61 SCRA
218, 219).  In a Workmen’s Compensation
case, “the notice of injury or sickness and claim for compen­sation and
the employer’s report are the two main pleadings x x x, which correspond to the complaint and answer in an ordinary civil
case” (Marcela Dionisio vs. Rosario Jimenez, et al., L-7764, July 1, 1954, 95 Phil. 595).

It is also clear in the
records that even the order of November 10, 1975 of the Acting Referee of the
Workmen’s Compensation Unit, who originally tried this case, did not at all
mention the alleged incident which caused the amputation of petitioner’s left
middle finger.  The fact that the
aforesaid order did not make mention of the supposed accident shows that
petitioner really failed to raise the same in her claim.  Having thus failed to raise the issue in
Regional Office No. 5 where her claim was originally heard, she cannot raise
the same now for the first time on appeal to the Workmen’s Compensation Commission.

With respect, however, to the aforementioned second assigned
error, We disagree with the Workmen’s Compensation
Commission in dismissing the petition by merely stating that “chronic
rheumatic arthritis with sub-acute exacerbation, hypertension, is not caused by
the nature of claimant’s employment.” It has been shown with great
preponderance of evidence that during her tenure of employment as a classroom
public school teacher at several barrio schools in Calabanga, Camarines Sur,
she was afflicted with chronic rheumatic arthritis with sub-acute exacerbation,
hypertension, caused by metabolic mental stress, suffering the disease since
1969 (p. 4 of Affidavit, p. 23, rec.). 
These findings are amply supported with the physician’s medical report
of sickness or accident issued by her physician, Dr. Pablo B. Tordilla of
Calabanga, Camarines Sur (pp. 79 & 80, rec.) as well as the verified
medical certificate issued by the same physician dated 23 September 1975 (Annex
“1”, p. 72, rec.).  Indeed,
herein claimant, by the nature and location of her employ­ment had to exert
extreme efforts in hiking on long, hilly and rough trails, crossing streams
and/or rivers, exposed to the rain and sun in going to and from her barrio
stations.  She had to prepare her lesson
plans, teach her pupils, attend to extra-curricular school activities,
supervise gardening, serve as election inspector or poll clerk, meet her social
obligations and engage in other strenuous activities, which aggravated her
physical suffering.  Rheumatic arthritis
with sub-acute exacerbation and hypertension is among the diseases which were held to be
“service-connected”.  Even
assuming, without admitting, that such an illness was not the immediate and direct
result of the nature of her employment as grade school teacher, it is very
evident that such sickness supervened or was at least aggravated by the very
nature of her work, hence, must be presumed to be compensable under the law.  It is so clearly and sufficiently established
in this case that petitioner’s sickness was
acquired and aggravated during and in the course of her employment in the
Bureau of Public Schools with station in the various barrio schools at
Calabanga, Camarines Sur.

In the
recent case of Valeriana A. Morales, petitioner, vs. Workmen’s Compensation
Commission (Bureau of Public Schools), respondent [G.R. No. L-43856, March 31, 1977], this Court ruled:

“Aside from actual proof of disability arising from her
employment, the presumption of compensability as long as the ailment supervenes
during employment, remains unrebutted.  x x x.”

Likewise,
in Bihag, et al. vs. WCC and Republic of the Philippines (Bureau of Public Schools)
[G.R. No. L-43162, February
28, 1977], it was
held:

“x x x x At  the very least,
therefore, the nature and condition of her work contributed to and aggravated
in a large measure her ailment and entitled her to compensation under the
Workmen’s Compensation Act.  Thus, Lilia D. Simon versus Republic of the Philippines (G.R. No. L-42510, June
30, 1916), citing a very recent case penned by Mr. Justice Ruperto
G. Martin, held:

‘x x x assuming the employee’s illness may be ruled out as an
occupational disease or that the causal link between the nature of his employment
and his ailment, has been insufficiently shown, nevertheless, it is to be
presumed as mandated by Section 44 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act that the
employee’s illness which supervened during his employment either arose out of,
or at least aggravated by said employment and with this presumption, the burden
of proof shifts to the employer and the employee is relieved of the burden to
show causation.  In the case before us,
the respondent has failed to discharge
that burden.  The mere opinion of the
doctor who treated the petitioner that ‘dermoid cyst’ is congenital, although
he admitted that it may also be aggravated by her employment, cannot prevail
over the presumption of compensability.'”

Claimant retired in 1974
at the age of 64.  The compulsory age of
retirement is 65.  Hence, she voluntarily
retired by reason of her physical disability; because under Memorandum Circular
No. 133 issued by the Office of the President, all applications for optional
retirement shall be recommended for approval only when “the employee
applicant is below 65 years of age and is physically incapacitated to render
further efficient service.” It is thus patent that she retired by reason
of her ailment.

WHEREFORE, THE DECISION APPEALED FROM IS HEREBY
REVERSED AND THE RESPONDENT BUREAU OF PUBLIC SCHOOLS IS HEREBY DIRECTED TO PAY

A.  THE CLAIMANT CONSOLACION
DIMAANO

1.                  
THE SUM OF SIX THOUSAND
(P6,000.00) PESOS AS DISABILITY COMPENSATION; AND

2.                  
THE AMOUNT OF ONE THOUSAND
SEVENTY-NINE (P1,079.00) PESOS AS REIMBURSEMENT OF
CLAIMANT’S MEDICAL FEE, PER MEDICAL CERTIFICATE (ANNEX “I”, REC.);

B.   ATTY. HAIDE B. VISTA-GUMBA,
ATTORNEY’S FEES EQUIVALENT TO TEN PERCENT (10%) OF THE AMOUNT RECOVERABLE; AND

C.   THE SUM OF SIXTY-ONE (P61.00) PESOS TO THE
WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION AS ADMINISTRATIVE FEE.

NO COSTS.

SO ORDERED.

Teehankee, (Chairman), Muñoz Palma, Martin, Fernandez, and Guerrero, JJ., concur.