G.R. No. L-43018. October 28, 1977
LOURDES S. BELLO, ASSISTED BY HER HUSBAND, FRED N. BELLO, PETITIONER, VS. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION AND REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES (BUREAU OF PUBLIC SCHOOLS), RESPONDE…
MUÑOZ PALMA, J.:
This Petition for Review seeks a modification of a decision of
the defunct Workmen’s Compensation Commission which granted a limited award to
claimant Lourdes S. Bello.
The facts are stated in the decision dated October 9, 1974, of
the Acting Chief, Workmen’s Compensation Unit, Regional Office No. 10,
Zamboanga City from which We quote:
“This is a claim for illness compensation filed by Lourdes S.
Bello against the Republic of the Philippines under Act 3428, as amended,
otherwise known as the Workmen’s Compensation Law.
“During the hearing, the claimant was represented by Atty.
Felix Bello, Jr. and the following salient points were taken: that the claimant was a public school teacher
who entered her employment with the respondent in the year 1965; her salary was
P3,432.00 per annum, as shown in her service record, Exhibit ‘E’; nature of her
duties was as classroom teacher and at the same time she had to perform civic
action works for the community; in the performance of her duties claimant was
exposed to the weather elements; on September 11, 1973 claimant became sick of
Pulmonary Tuberculosis, Minimal, with fibrosis, as shown in the Physician’s
Report of Dr. Rodolfo P. Alano dated November 2, 1973, Exhibit ‘C’; item No. 9
of Exhibit ‘C’, Dr. Alano stated that the illness of the claimant was the
result of the nature of his employment; on October 1, 1973 claimant had
stopped working due to her illness and at the same time her services were
terminated by the respondent as shown in the Service Record, Exhibit ‘E’; the
claimant had received her salaries during the period of her ailment up to the
time of her separation from the service.
“Records in this case show that respondent did not file a
controversion of the claim; also the claimant was evaluated by Dr. Romulo P.
Montecillo, to be suffering of permanent partial disability to the extent of
12% N.S.D.
“Based on the foregoing facts and evidence, it is our conceded
view, so we hold, that since the illness of the claimant had supervened during
the period of his employment, it is presumed it arose out of it. Therefore, the herein claim falls within the
purview of Section 2 of the Act, as amended, otherwise known as the Workmen’s
Compensation Law.
“Computation of disability compensation benefits is as
follows:
“12% N.S.D. is equivalent to 24.96 weeks.
“50% of the average weekly wage of the claimant which was
P66.00 equals P33.00 times 24.96 weeks claimant is entitled to P823.16.
“DECISION, is hereby rendered in favor of the claimant. Respondent is hereby ordered:
“1. To pay to the claimant, thru this Office,
disability compensation benefits in the amount of P823.16 pursuant to Section
17 of the Act;
“2. To pay to Atty. Felix Bello, counsel for the
claimant, attorney’ s fee in the amount of P41.00 pursuant to Section 31 of the
Act;
“3. To pay to the Workmen’s Compensation Fund,
thru this Office, administration fee in the amount of P9.00 pursuant to Section
55 of the Act.
SO ORDERED.”[1]
Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration claiming that the
aforesaid decision “inadvertently perhaps, did not contain judgment on
claimant’s main claim for illness compensation under Section 14 or 16, as the
case may be, and for medical care under Section 13 of the Act.” This
motion was denied and the records of the case were accordingly elevated to the
Workmen’s Compensation Commission for review.
In a Decision of January 19, 1976 respondent Commission affirmed
the above-quoted award.[2]
Petitioner-claimant now submits that:
xxx xxx xxx
“. . . . after
respondent employer forced petitioner to resign because of her sickness
(pulmonary tuberculosis), certainly, a measure taken to safeguard pupils from
being infected with the disease, and after resignation and termination from
service (1 October 1973) she became jobless – which she is up to the present –
and did not receive any salary anymore from respondent employer, or from any
other person, under the law, she is entitled to and should receive compensation
for disability for labor under Section 14 of the Act, said compensation to be
equivalent to 60% of the average weekly wage of the claimant (petitioner) for
a period of 4 years (maximum) covering the period from the time she resigned
due to disability until she should have retired compulsorily at 65 or a period
of 32 years more, considering that petitioner is 33 years old at present,
before reaching such retirement age at 65 (Ciriaco Hernandez vs. MERALCO and
WCC, G.R. No. L-20202, May1965).”[3]
We find petitioner’s claim meritorious.
Disability occurs when an employee is disabled from rendering
further service due to his physical inability to perform work in the usual and
customary way. For purposes of the
Workmen’s Compensation Act there is disability when there is a loss or
diminution of earning power which is due to an injury arising out of and in the
course of the employment.[4]
It is not the injury which is compensated but rather it is the incapacity to
work resulting in the impairment of one’s earning capacity.[5]
In the case of claimant Lourdes Bello, the record shows that she
was in good health when she commenced to work for respondent Bureau of Public
Schools as a classroom teacher in 1965.
She was on her job continuously until September of 1973 when she
contracted pulmonary tuberculosis which compelled her to use up her sick leave
benefits. Her ailment was not cured
notwithstanding rest and medications so that she had to resign from her
teaching position on October 1, 1973, and since then she had been unable to
work and earn for her livelihood. When
she resigned, petitioner was only 31 years old, and had it not been for that illness incurred and
aggravated in the course of her employment, she would be serving the government
until her age of retirement at 65.
Petitioner’s case undoubtedly is one of total disability which entitles
her to the compensation provided for in Section 14 of the Workmen’s
Compensation Act which gives a maximum of six thousand pesos. There is total disability not only because
claimant is physically unable to perform the kind of work she knows how to do
and is capable of doing – that of teaching – but also because no employer would
accept her services with the nature of her illness considering that a physical
and medical examination is as a rule a pre-requisite to any employment be it in
the government or private sector.
Whether petitioner’s disability be temporary or permanent depending on
the possibility of her being cured of the disease, the law grants her
compensation which as stated is not to exceed six thousand pesos under Section
14, Workmen’s Compensation Act. In
addition, petitioner is entitled to be provided with such services and supplies
as the nature of her disability and process of recovery may require under
Section 13 of the same Act.
Petitioner herein is similarly situated as the claimant in the
recent case of Castro vs. Workmen’s Compensation Commission, et al.
where the Court awarded a compensation of six thousand pesos to the claimant
teacher, who had to leave his teaching job with the Bureau of Public Schools
due to minimal pulmonary tuberculosis.[6]
PREMISES CONSIDERED, We modify the appealed decision of
respondent Commission and order respondents Bureau of Public Schools and/or Republic
of the Philippines:
1. To pay petitioner Lourdes
S. Bello
a. Six Thousand Pesos (P6,000.00) as
compensation benefits;
b. Expenses, if any, incurred for medical and
hospital bills duly supported by receipts in connection with her illness;
c. Attorney’s fees of six hundred pesos
(P600.00);
2. To provide petitioner
continuous medical and hospital services and supplies as the nature of the
ailment requires if the illness still subsists; and
3. To pay the Workmen’s
Compensation Commission Sixty-one pesos (P61.00) as administrative fees.
So Ordered.
Teehankee, (Chairman), Makasiar, Martin, Fernandez, and Guerrero, JJ., concur.
[1]
pp. 10-12, rollo
[2]
pp. 14-15, ibid.
[3]
pp. 6-7, ibid.
[4]
“Labor Standard and Welfare Legislation” by Fernandez and Quiazon,
cited in Marcelino vs. Seven-Up Bottling Co. et al., 1972, 47 SCRA 343
[5]
Vicente Francisco, Labor Laws of the Philippines, 4th Ed., Vol. II, p. 492.
[6]
Per Makasiar, J., 1977, 75 SCRA 173; see also Despe vs. Workmen’s
Compensation Commission, et al., 1977, 75 SCRA 350.