VIVENCIO OMISON, PETITIONER, VS. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.

Petitioner seeks the reversal of the decision of the Workmen’s
Compensation Commission in WCU Case No. 356 entitled Vivencio Omison,
claimant vs. Province of Negros Occidental (Provincial Engineer’s
Office) respondent, dismissing his claim for disability benefits which
was earlier granted to him by the Workmen’s Compensation Unit at Bacolod
City.

The antecedent facts are not disputed. As summarized by Referee
Pacifico Militante of the Workmen’s Compensation Unit, Bacolod City,
they are:

“As could be reflected from the pleadings and evidences adduced by
the parties, the claimant appears to be under the employ of the
respondent since the year 1939 continuously up to May 16, 1973, with
assignment as construction helper (caminero or street caretaker), and
receiving a monthly salary of P240.00 (Service Record). The nature of
his duties were to clean, maintain, pave and helps (sic) in the
construction of bridges, and to perform all maintenance and construction
works of national road in the Province of Negros Occidental. As such,
he is used to be exposed to all the climactic changes of the elements of
nature. He likewise did some heavy lifting of beams and boulders
needed in the construction projects and was usually exposed to the heat
of the fire and obnoxious odor of the asphalt in its heating and melting
process. That in the late 1960’s he began to notice that his body
resistance had lowered very much and he become easily susceptible to
colds and afternoon fever. In 1972, he was prompted to consult Dr.
Raymundo Guerrero and was given prescription of medicines for TB. He
also consulted Dr. Genato Llamas, Sr. and Dr. Genato Llamas, Jr. and was
given further medicines for his ailment with an advice to have himself
x-rayed. (Physician’s Report, Dr. Genato Llamas, Jr.). On April 5,
1973, x-ray examination at the Negros Occidental Chest Clinic revealed a
findings of “PTB, moderately advance, Active”. Again on June 25, 1974,
he was x-rayed by the same Dr. Amador C. Antonio, Phthisiologist, (sic)
Negros Occidental Chest Clinic, and the findings was “PTB, minimal,
Questionably Active.”

On May 15, 1973, the petitioner applied for retirement under
Commonwealth Act 186 as amended due to his alleged physical inability to
continue his work as a result of his illness. His application was
approved and his last day of actual service was on May 15, 1973.

On June 21, 1973, the petitioner filed a claim for disability benefits
under the Workmen’s Compensation Act against the Province of Negros
Occidental before the Workmen’s Compensation Unit, Bacolod City.

On October 7, 1975, the Workmen’s Compensation Unit through referee
Pacifico Militante issued a decision granting disability benefits in
favor of the petition. The dispositive portion of the decision reads:

“The matter fully considered, this Office then reached the
conclusion that this claim is compensable, and, therefore, orders the
respondent Province of Negros Occidental and/or Provincial Engineer’s
Office of Negros Occidental, to pay:

(1) To the claimant, under Section 18 of the Act, the sum of P5,213.57,
computed as follows: Claimant’s illness has been evaluated and
certified to by Dr. Antonio Habana, Compensation Rating Medical Officer,
this Office, dated October 1, 1975 to be 90% NSD. 50% of claimant’s
average weekly wage of P55.38 (P240.00 x 12+52) equals P27.69 multiplied
with 90% of 208 weeks or 187.2 weeks equals P5,213.57;

(2) To the claimant, under Sec. 15 of the Act, as reimbursement
of medical and hospital expenses and doctor’s Bills, as certified to by
Dr. Antonio Habana, this Office, the sum of P525.75;

(3) Atty. Romeo Bernaje, claimant’s counsel, as attorney’s fees under Section 31 of the Act, the sum of P260.68;

(4) To this Office, as administrative fee under Section 55 of the Act, the sum of P53.00;

All Payments must be coursed thru this Office.

On appeal by the province of Negros Occidental the Workmen’s
Compensation Commission reversed and set aside the afore-mentioned
decision. Hence, the instant petition.

The Workmen’s Compensation Commission rejected the petitioner’s
disability benefits claim on the premise that there was no evidence
presented to the effect that as a result of his sickness the petitioner
was either physically incapable of continuing his work or that his
earning capacity was impaired. The Com­mission reasoned out its ruling
in the following manner:

xxx       xxx       xxx

“x x x Under the law, compensable ailments are those which produce
physical disability or which impairs the earning capacity of the
employee. Further, it is an essential requirement under the Act, that
in order to impose liability upon the employer for the payment of
compensation benefits, it is essential that the illness which caused the
physical disability be causally related with the employee’s work or
employment. In the instant case, claimant asserted that he first felt
the symptoms of his illness in 1960. It was only in 1972 that he
consulted a physician. There is, however, no showing that claimant has
applied for sick leaves for a considerable length of time, showing
incapacity for work before he stopped working on May 16, 1973.
Obviously, therefore, there is no evidence which shows that claimant has
been incapacitated or work due to a compensable illness or injury. It
may be true that he was afflicted with PTB, minimal, probably active.
At this stage PTB is curable. A careful scrutiny of the evidence,
however, does not show any proof that claimant was physically
incapacitated for work due to such ailment. Yet, the Compensation
Rating Medical Officer has rated claimant’s disability at 90% of
non-scheduled disability under Section 18 of the Act. We do not find
any factual basis for the doctor’s evaluation. As a matter of fact,
there is no showing that claimant ever suffered temporary disability.
Hence, there is no justification of granting him permanent partial
disability under Section 18 of the Act. We take note of the admissions
by claimant in his affidavit when he stated that his service has been
continuous until May 16, 1973. This, alone, is an adequate indication
that claimant was never incapacitated for work with the respondent. In
the absence of any proof of physical disability, claimant shall not be
entitled to disability compensation benefits under Section 2 of the Act.

It is apparent that the Commission equates disa­bility compensation
benefits with claimant’s physical incapacity to perform labor by reason
of his illness. This conclusion is unwarranted. As stated in Makabali v. Employees’ Compensation Commission (126 SCRA 174) citing Corales v. Employees’ Compensation Commission (88 SCRA 555):

“x x x We have recognized the fact that an employee medically
pronounced disabled for work can, despite thereof, pursue his work by
sheer determination and ingenuity.

“In the subsequent cases of Romero vs. WCC, et al. (77 SCRA 480, June
30, 1977) and Gonzales vs. WCC, et. al. (81 SCRA 709-710), We enunciated
that:

“Disability, as a basis for compensation, is the combination of
partial or total physical incapacity and of inability to work, or
inability to work with the same case and competency as before the
injury, or the loss, total or partial, of earning power from the injury
(Corpus Juris, Section 535, p. 813).

“Disability is used either in the medical or physical sense, as
evidenced by obvious loss of members or by medical testimony that the
claimant simply cannot make the necessary muscular movements and
exertions; it is used to mean de facto inability to earn wages, as evidenced by proof that claimant has not in fact earned anything.

“This medical and wage-loss aspects of disability may be more
clearly illustrated as follows: A claimant may be, in a medical sense,
utterly shattered and ruined, but may be sheer determination and
ingenuity contrive to make a living for himself; conversely, a claimant
may be able to work, in both his and doctor’s opinion, but awareness of
his injury may lead employers to refuse his employment.

“The problem of the administrators of the Act is the proper
balancing of these medical and wage-loss factors. An absolute
insistence on medical disability in the abstract would produce a denial
of compensation in the latter case, although the wage-loss is a real and
as directly traceable to the injury as in any other instance. At the
other extreme, an insistence on the wage-loss as the best would deprive
the claimant in the former illustration of an award, thus not only
penalizing his laudable efforts to make the best of his misfortune but
also fos­tering the absurdity of pronouncing a man non-disabled in spite
of the unanimous contrary evidence of medical experts and of common
observation (Larson, Vol. II, p. 3).”

Hence, the fact that the petitioner rendered continuous service until
his retirement does not imply that he can not claim disability
compensation benefits under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. Besides,
his motivation not to be absent from his work despite his tuberculosis
must have been due to the fact that he was a daily-wage earner. He
needed the money.

The petitioner entered his employment as construction laborer (caminero)
with the private respondent in 1939 presumably in good health. It was
only in the 1960’s or after a period of more than twenty one (21) years
that sickness became manifest as he noticed that his body resistance had
lowered and he became easily susceptible to colds and afternoon fevers.
Apparently, through the years and in the course of his employment he
contracted sickness which gradually aggravated. Thus, in 1972, he
consulted physicians who gave him prescriptions of medicines for
pulmonary tuberculosis. On April 5, 1973 he had an x-ray examination at
the Negros Occidental Chest Clinic which revealed findings of “PTB
moderately advanced active”. The nature of the petitioner’s work was
such that he was exposed to dust, heat and sudden climatic changes which
could have caused or aggravated his illness. These circumstances show
that the petitioner’s illness supervened and was aggravated in the
course of his employment with the private respondent. The presumptions
of compensability and the criteria for work connection and work
aggravation under the old Workmen’s Compensation Act’s provisions on
compensability apply.

WHEREFORE, the decision of the Employees’ Compensation Commission is
hereby SET ASIDE and the decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Unit,
Bacolod City is REINSTATED.

SO ORDERED.

Teehankee, (Acting C.J.), Melencio-Herrera, Plana, Relova, and De la Fuente, JJ., concur.