FEDERICO CATAPANG, PETITIONER, VS. THE WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION AND VICTORIAS MILLING CO., INC., RESPONDENTS.

This is a claim for compensation
for illness, the compensability of which is not in question in this proceedings. The issue, which We are called upon to determine is “the basis of computation
of the average weekly pay of petitioner,” which is determinative of whether he
is covered under the applicable laws.

Petitioner Federico Catapang had been employed by respondent Victorias Milling Company since 1934 up to 1941, outbreak of
the war. In 1946, he rejoined the company and was assigned as “Issuer of
Foodstuffs,” until his hospitalization for pulmonary
tuberculosis on June 23,
1961. In
1939 and up to the outbreak of the war, he was subjected to an annual physical
and X-ray examinations, in all of which he was found negative of the disease. In
1947, after returning to work, after X-ray examinations, he was found negative
of pulmonary tuberculosis. In the succeeding year, however, (1948), acting on
his complaint of hard breathing, with back and chest pains and loss of appetite,
the company physician caused an X-ray examination and, for the first time, he
was found to be suffering from minimal pulmonary tuberculosis. In spite of this
finding, petitioner was made to continue working as Issuer of Foodstuffs, which
entailed lifting and carrying of sacks of rice, groceries, and other items of
foodstuffs, stockpiling and disposing of them to employees of the respondent
Victorias Milling. In his work, as issuer of
foodstuffs, petitioner usually worked early and retired late. The place, having
been more often crowded than not, he was always wet with perspiration. With the
finding of minimal pulmonary tuberculosis, petitioner was administered with
anti-tuberculosis treatment, at intermittent intervals. The intermittent
treatments might not have done any good for him, for on June 23,
1951, he
was confined at the company hospital and he was found to be suffering from “far
advanced pulmonary tuberculosis.” Although the illness was not
yet arrested. because further treatment was
still required, petitioner was released from the hospital on September 15,
1951. On
September 30,
1951, he
was found medically unfit for work by the company physician who thereby
recommended him for discharge from the service. A gratuity pay of P1,700.00 was given to petitioner.

The Hearing Officer of the WCC
finding that the was caused and/or aggravated by the nature of his an award of
compensation of P3,000.00, the maximum allowed by law,
was rendered in favor of petitioner. The respondent was also ordered to provide
petition with such medical, surgical and hospital services, as the nature of the
illness might require, until the same was arrested and to pay P160.00 as
attorney’s fees. On appeal of the above decision, the WCC, speaking thru
Commissioner Perez and concurred in by Commissioner Sanchez, reversed the same,
not on factual basis but purely on the contention that
petitioner was not within the coverage of the law then in force, since
petitioner was receiving at the time more than P42.00 a week. Pertinent portions
of the decision of the WCC En Banc, read as follows:

“* * * Accordingly, the instant
case should be governed by the law in force on June 23, 1951, when the claimant
was incapacitated for tabor due to said ailment. The law then in force was Act
3428, as amended by Commonwealth Act No. 210, Section 39 (b) of which reads as
follows: “

”
‘Laborer’ is
used at a synonym of ’employee’ and means every person who has entered the
employment of, or works under a service or apprenticeship contracted for as
employer. It does not include a person whose employment is purely casual and
in not for the purposes of the occupation or business of the employer, or whose
remuneration paid by the employer, exclusive of overtime pay is in excess of
forty-two pesos a week * * *

It was only on June 20,
1952,
upon the enactment of Republic No. 772 when the provision on the salary limit
was eliminated the Act. Section 39 (b) of Act 3428, as amended by said Republic
Act 772 now reads as follows:

“* * *. It does not include a
person whose employment is purely casual and is not for the purposes of the
occupation or business of the employer. * * *’.

Here, it appears from the record
that the claimant was earning P200.00 a month of P46.15 a week at the time he
severed connection from the employment on September 30,
1951
* * *). Consequently, his average weekly wage being in excess of forty-two pesos
provided for in the aforequoted provisions of the
prevailing law, the claimant in this case has no cause of action against the
respondent.

“Much as we want to help the
claimant in this particular case, but we cannot do otherwise except to follow
the old law, inasmuch he amendatory provisions of Republic Act No. 772 cannot be
made to apply retroactively (* * *). Thus, * * *, in the case of Wack Wack Golf & Country Club,
Inc. vs. Workmen’s Compensation Commission, et al., 101 Phil. 566, ruled: ‘The
elimination of such exclusion from the statute on June 20, 1952 can not render
compensable facts or events which were not compensable when they
happened.’

“Wherefore, the decision under
review should be, as it is hereby, reversed and respondent absolved from
compensation liability.”

From the above decision, Chairman
N. Baens del Rosario,
dissented, explaining that the P200.00 which petitioner was receiving only
from June 1,
1951, should not be the basis for
computing his average weekly pay. Chairman del Rosario claimed that there is a divergence as to the
claimant’s wages. Even respondent Victorias Milling,
in its report (WCC Form No. 3 and Supplementary Report) both dated January 22,
1960, placed claimant’s monthly salary as P140.00, and his weekly wage at
P32.22; that it was only when respondent Victorias
Milling filed its opposition to petitioner’s motion for reconsideration that it
claimed that he (petitioner) was receiving P200.00 a month; that immediately
prior to June 1, 1951, he was receiving P170.00 monthly pay and it was only on
June 1, 1951, that the company raised his salary to P200.00. Chairman del Rosario affirmed the findings of the Hearing Officer that
it was the nature of the work of petitioner Catapang
which caused and/or aggravated his illness, and advocated for the reversal of
the decision of the majority, with some modifications, including the increase in
the award of attorney’s fees from P150.00 to P225.00.

After the WCC en bane denied the
motion for reconsideration, petitioner elevated the matter to this Court.

As has been stated at the outset,
there is no dispute regarding the compensability of the illness. There is also
no question, that at the time of the supposed
occurrence of the illness, there was such salary limit of not more than P42.00 a
week. Nevertheless, we find that under t peculiar circumstances of the case, the
application of salary limit should be denied.

No denial was interposed by the
respondent Victorias Milling to the fact that it came
to know that petitioner was suffering from minimal pulmonary tuberculosis since
1948, when its company physician caused an X-ray examination to be conducted and
subsequently administered anti-tuberculosis treatments on intermittent scale,
upon the petitioner. Three (3) years thereafter (1951) petitioner was still
performing the same work, which, as found by the hearing officer and concurred
in by the Commission en banc, was the cause and/or aggravated the illness. It
was not refuted also, that it was only on June 1,
1951,
that, the company increased the monthly pay of petitioner from P170.00 to
P200.00, and that part of the latter amount was applied to his hospital
expenses, from the time of his confinement in the hospital on June 23,
1951.

On the dominant issue thus
presented, Chairman del Rosario made the following
observations and conclusions:

“* * *. Inasmuch as the exact
amount earned during the 12 week period immediately preceding the date of his
illness does not appear in the records, we can only rely on the statement of the
claimant that before June 1,
1951 he
was earning P170.00 a month. Using this amount as basis of computation and
covering the 12-week period from March 31,
1951 to
June 22,
1951 (for
he was confined on June 23,
1951) we
find his average weekly wage was P39.23 (P180.00 a month x 12 weeks ÷ P52 weeks). The wage earned during the 12 weeks next preceding
the date of disability is used as basis in the computation of weekly
compensation because the (measure of loss to the family due to the accident or
illness is dependent on such wages. He is therefore entitled to
compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Law before it was amended by
Republic Act No, 772.”

Which we deem
tenable and logical and more in keeping with the spirit and purpose of the law
and in consonance with the policy that the interpretation of compensation laws
should feasibly be in favor of the worker. And the conclusion cannot be
otherwise, for it is an unrefuted fact that l2 weeks immediately preceding June 23,
1951,
petitioner was receiving only P170.00 a month. The law provides:

“See. 19. Computation of Wages.
The average weekly wages shall be computed hi such manner that it shall be the
best computation that can be made of the weekly earnings of the laborer, during
the twelve weeks nest preceding his injury: * *
*.”

Although the injury (illness in
the present case) was contracted very much earlier, the computation should start
back from the date of disability of petitioner which took place on
June 23,
1951,
when he was hospitalized for “advanced pulmonary tuberculosis and completely
disabled for work.” Petitioner was so disabled that although he was released
from the hospital on September 15,
1951, not
at all cured, the company physician recommended, on September 30,
1951,
that he should be, as he was, in effect, dismissed and given gratuity, from
which We should infer that the basis of computation of
petitioner’s wages is June 23,
1951.
Twelve (12) weeks back from said date, was March 31, 1951, long before and
during which, until June 1,1951, his monthly salary was P170.00 and the average
of which (for 12 weeks) was P39.23, very much less than P42.00 a week, the
limitation fixed by law (supra).

Even granting, for the purposes
of argument, that the basis of computation is September 30,
1951,
still the same result is obtained, because in the so-called increased salary of
P200.00, the hospital expenses were included.

Appellees cited the case of Nasco vs. De Leon, et al., G. R. No. L-9561, Sept 30,
1957, to bolster their
theory. We
have examined the case, and the ruling therein was predicated upon an entirely
different set of facts. After a careful perusal of the record of the case, would
seem that the increase and discharge of petition were so timed to coincide with
the ultimate pattern to make him fall under the category of employees not
covered by the law then in force, due to salary limit. Such an act can be
interpreted as a subtle way of defeating petitioner’s right to compensation, in
the guise of generosity and benevolence.

IN VIEW OF THE
FOREGOING, the
decision sought to be reviewed is hereby reversed, and another entered declaring
that petitioner is entitled to compensation, the amount of which is to be
computed by the Workmen’s Compensation Commission, in accordance with our
findings. Respondent Victorias Milling Company should
pay.

Reyes, J.B. L., Barrera, Dizon, Regala, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P. and Zaldivar, JJ., concur.