SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM, PETITIONER, VS. LEONOR ARELLANO AND THE WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, RESPONDENTS.

This is a petition for review of the resolution of the Workmen’s
Compensation Commission (WCC) dated June 9, 1971 declaring private
respondent Arellano’s right to compensation benefits for disability due
to pulmonary tuberculosis under a final and partially executed decision
of the WCC, as not affected by his subsequent separation (retirement)
from the service by his employer, the Social Security System (SSS), for
absences that were precisely caused by his illness.

When Leonor Arellano was still working as a clerk in the Claims
Department of the Social Security System, he contracted pulmonary
tuberculosis on the basis of which he filed a claim for disability
compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. On January 20, 1970,
the WCC hearing officer rendered a decision declaring Arellano’s
disability work-connected and ordering the SSS to pay the claimant
P1,933.99 plus a weekly compensation of P52.27 beginning on January 21,
1970 until the disability ceases, which weekly compensation shall not
exceed P6,000.

The SSS moved for a reconsideration of the decision. In a decision
dated August 11, 1970, the WCC chairman denied the motion and ordered
the SSS to pay the claimant P3,449.82 as compensation benefits under
section 14 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act from May 7, 1969 to August
11, 1970, and weekly thereafter, the sum of P52.27 until his disability
for labor ceases, but the total compensa­tion shall not exceed P6,000.

In compliance with the above decision, the SSS paid the claimant
P3,449.82 but did not pay the adjudged weekly compensation. Hence, in
March 1971, the claimant filed with the WCC an “Ex-Parte Motion to
Declare Balance of Compensation Benefits under Section 14 of the Act as
Due and Demandable.” There being no opposition nor even a manifestation
filed by the SSS, the WCC chairman issued an order dated April 23, 1971
granting the Ex-Parte Motion and ordering the SSS – in implementation of
the two previous ­WCC decisions mentioned above – to pay the claimant
the sum of P1,904.12 as compensation benefits from August 12, 1970 to
April 23, 1971; and thereafter, a weekly compen­sation of P52.27 until
his sickness is declared arrested, but the total compensation benefits
shall not exceed P6,000.

Soon after the issuance of the above adverse WCC order, the SSS
Administrator wrote Mr. Arellano a letter dated December 23, 1970, as
follows:

“In view of your prolonged absence due to ill health, you are
hereby informed that you are dropped from the roll of employees of the
System, effective immediately.”

It bears emphasis that although the above letter was be­latedly
dispatched, the termination of Mr. Arellano’s services was made
retroactive to December 23, 1970.

Thereafter, i.e., on May 31, 1971, the SSS filed with the WCC a Motion
for Clarification and/or Reconsideration, inquiring as to the effect of
claimant’s retirement from the SSS on the WCC order of April 23, 1971.
On June 9, 1971, the WCC chairman promulgated the now assailed
resolution declaring that “claimant’s retirement does not at all relieve
the respondent from payment of compensation due him,” from which the
instant appeal by way of petition for review has been filed.

The petition must fail, quite apart from the fact that the issue (as to
the effect of the dismissal of private respondent upon his entitlement
to compensation benefit) was tardily raised by the SSS in a mere motion
for clarification and/or reconsideration after the decision awarding the
same had become final and had in fact been partially paid by the SSS.

Section 14 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act provides:

“Total disability. – In case the injury or sickness
causes temporary total disability for labor, the employer shall, during
such disability, pay to the injured employee a weekly compensation
equivalent to sixty per centum of his average weekly wage bur not less
than fourteen pesos per week… Such weekly payments shall in no case
continue after the disability has ceased, nor shall the aggregate sum
paid as compensation exceed in any case six thousands pesos.”

Compensation benefit is premised on loss or impairment of earning
capacity due to illness or injury during a period of employment. Hence,
it may be conceded that entitlement thereto, as a rule, presupposes the
existence of employer-employee relationship. (Hernandez vs. Work­men’s
Compensation Commission, 14 SCRA 219.) Nevertheless, once compensation
benefits are awarded and the award becomes final, the employer’s
liability cannot be aborted by his unilateral act of terminating the
services of his disabled or sick employee, especially if the ground
invoked therefor is absence which was precisely caused by the disability
for which compensation benefits had been awarded. If the rule were
otherwise, the employer would have it within its power to unilaterally
extinguish his own liability at the expense of his hapless employees.

WHEREFORE, the assailed resolution of the Workmen’s Compensation
Commission dated June 9, 1971 is affirmed. Costs against the
petitioner.

SO ORDERED.

Melencio-Herrera, (Acting Chairman), Relova, Gutierrez, Jr., and De La Fuente JJ., concur.

Teehankee, J., (Chairman), on official leave.