SARMIENTO ENGINEERING CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, HONORABLE SEVERO M. PUCAN, CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMISSION AND MAXIMA VDA. DE DELENA, RESPONDENTS.

Sarmiento Engineering versus Workmen's Compensation Commission

The Case

This is a petition for review on certiorari brought by Sarmiento Engineering Corporation against the Workmen's Compensation Commission, its Chairman, and the widow of a deceased employee. The petitioner challenges the Commission's order requiring it to reimburse the widow for hospital and medical expenses that her late husband had advanced out of his own pocket during his final illness. The case matters because it fixes who bears the cost of medical services, appliances, and supplies under the Workmen's Compensation Act, and it settles that such costs fall on the employer and may not be charged against the death benefits owed to the heirs.

Procedural History

The claim was filed before the Workmen's Compensation Commission in a regional office case. The Commission ruled in favor of the widow, ordering Sarmiento Engineering to pay her the sum of two thousand six hundred thirty three pesos and twenty five centavos, representing the extra hospitalization and medical expenses less advances already made, and to pay the Workmen's Compensation Fund sixty six pesos as costs. Sarmiento Engineering then came to the Supreme Court by petition for review on certiorari, asking that the Commission's decision be set aside.

Facts

Jose F. Delena had been employed with Sarmiento Engineering Corporation as shop supervisor since 1968, earning a monthly salary of eight hundred pesos plus a thirty peso monthly allowance. Before his death he underwent an operation for a kidney disease and was confined for thirty days at the F. M. Cruz Hospital in Valenzuela, Bulacan. After his release he was treated for cancer at the Veterans Hospital during the whole month of November 1974. On the first of December 1974 he was confined at the Chinese General Hospital, where he died on the eleventh of December 1974, leaving his widow Maxima and two minor daughters.

The employer did not dispute that the disease was compensable, and it paid all the expenses of his confinement at the F. M. Cruz Hospital. The deceased, however, spent his own money for medicines, X-rays, and doctors' professional fees, all supported by receipts admitted in evidence. He also received his salaries in full during his period of sickness, amounting to four thousand pesos.

Because the death compensation claim itself was not controverted, the only question before the Commission was who should bear the extra hospitalization and medical expenses that the deceased had advanced. The Commission ordered the employer to pay them to the widow, and that order is what the employer brought to the Supreme Court.

Issues

• Whether or not the employer is liable to reimburse the extra hospitalization and medical expenses, including supplies, that the sick employee advanced out of his own pocket.
• Whether or not such expenses may be deducted from the death benefits accruing in favor of the deceased's heirs.

Applicable Provisions

Section 13 of the Workmen's Compensation Act provides:

Immediately after an employee has suffered an injury or contracted sickness and during the subsequent period of disability, the employer or insurance carrier shall provide the employee with such services, appliances and supplies as the nature of his disability and the process of his recovery may require; and that which will promote his early restoration to the maximum level of his physical capacity.

This is the primary duty provision, placing on the employer the obligation to furnish medical services, appliances, and supplies.

The same section continues:

In case the employer or insurance carrier cannot furnish the aforesaid services, appliances and supplies promptly, the injured or sick employee may acquire the same at the expense of the employer or insurance carrier.

This is the reimbursement clause on which the widow's claim rests, allowing the employee who acquires the needed items himself to charge their cost to the employer.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the employer is liable. The Commission had ordered Sarmiento Engineering to pay the widow the extra hospitalization and medical expenses advanced by the deceased, and the Court found this correct. The Court read Section 13 as imposing on the employer the duty to provide the services, appliances, and supplies required by the nature of the disability and the process of recovery. Where the employer cannot furnish them promptly, the employee may acquire them at the employer's expense. Since the deceased had paid for medicines, X-rays, and doctors' fees himself, those amounts are properly chargeable to the employer.

On the second issue, the Court held that these expenses should not be deducted from the death benefits accruing in favor of the deceased or his heirs. The Court put it plainly that the expenses should be paid for by the employer and should not be deducted from the death benefits. The medical obligation and the death benefit are distinct burdens, and the employer cannot offset one against the other.

Doctrine

Under Section 13 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, the employer or insurance carrier must provide the injured or sick employee with such services, appliances, and supplies as the nature of the disability and the process of recovery may require. If the employer cannot furnish them promptly, the employee may acquire them at the employer's expense, and the employer must reimburse the employee or, upon death, the heirs who advanced the cost. These medical and hospitalization expenses are separate from death benefits and may not be deducted from the benefits accruing to the deceased's heirs. A bar candidate should state the rule as one of primary employer liability, with reimbursement as the remedy where the employer fails to act promptly.

Disposition

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and affirmed the decision of the Workmen's Compensation Commission, so the widow prevailed and the employer was ordered to pay the reimbursable medical expenses and the costs.

Remember This

Memorize the line that medical expenses are the employer's obligation and are never deducted from death benefits. Examiners use this case to test the employer's primary liability for medical services under the Workmen's Compensation Act and the rule against offsetting those costs against the heirs' benefits.