LEONCIA MAGAT, PETITIONER, VS. THE WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION AND THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES (BUREAU OF PUBLIC SCHOOLS), RESPONDENTS.

This is a petition to review
the decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission reversing the
award of the compensation benefits made by the Acting Referee of Regional
Office No. 4, Manila, in favor of herein petitioner.

Petitioner was first employed by the respondent Bureau of Public
Schools in 1941 as a classroom teacher. 
“In 1969, claimant began complaining of dizziness, pains on the
back of her neck occasioned by general body weakness and blurring of vision.  Her attending physician diagnosed her ailment
to be malignant hypertension.  Despite
continuous treatment and medication, her ailment persisted until it reached a
point that she could no longer continue rendering further service.” And
so, on January 14, 1974,
upon advice of her attending physician, she retired from the service at the age
of 63 years.  (Findings
of the Acting Referee Reg. No. 4, Workmen’s Compensation Section, Manila, Annex
A for petitioner, pp. 10, 11, rec.).

The records show that as classroom teacher, petitioner used to
work from Monday thru Friday.  However,
when she became principal teacher, every afternoon and on Saturdays she used to
conduct house visitations among her pupils and their respective parents about
community development particularly the promotion of the “Green Revolution.” In the process, she negotiates an
average of one (1) kilometer a day under the hot sun and sometimes in the rain (Annex A for petitioner, p. 10, rec.).  Petitioner’s last position prior to her
retirement was that of principal teacher, with compen­sation at the rate of Four Thousand One Hundred
Eighty-eight (P4,188.00) Pesos per annum; her last
leave of absence with pay, was from March 1 to April 3, 1973.  She
resumed working on April 4, 1973 up to January 13, 1974.  On January
14, 1974, she retired
from the govern­ment service.

On March 18, 1974,
petitioner filed her claim for disability compensation benefits.  In her Notice of Sickness and Claim for
Compensation, petitioner alleged that she was a former classroom teacher in the
Bureau of Public Schools; that
she was suffering from malignant hypertension since 1969 which caused her to
stop working on January 15, 1974; and that she contracted the said sickness in
the course of her employment which was aggravated by the nature of her work.

After hearing, the Acting Referee rendered a decision (Annex A,
Petition) awarding compensation benefits
to petitioner for disability corresponding to the period from January 14, 1974 up to August 18, 1975 or a period of 826/7 weeks
pursuant to Section 14 of Act
3428 as amended, and which was computed in the amount of P3,993.64, that is 60% of 80.53 average weekly wage or P48.32
multiplied by 826/7 weeks.  However, on review, the respondent Workmen’s Compensation
Commission reversed the same and ordered the case dismissed for lack of merit.

In disallowing the award for disability compensation benefits,
the respondent Commission ruled that:

“Hypertension is commonly a mere symptom of a disease and unless it is
complicated by cardio-vascular disease or cerebro-vascular
accident, cannot be considered a disabling illness.  Claimant
had not established any of these complica­tions.  Moreover, claimant had retired from the
service and for almost one year immediately prior thereto, she was con­tinuously
working with respondent.  Her service
record does not show that she retired due to disability, hence, her claim is
not covered by the compensatory provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act,
as amended” (Annex C, Petition, p. 14, rec.).

Petitioner insists that the decision of the Acting Referee (Annex A, Petition) had become final and executory on September 14, 1975 or after the lapse
of fifteen (15) days after the respondent Bureau of Public Schools received the
said decision on August 29, 1975, it appearing that no motion for reconsideration
was filed; neither was there timely appeal interposed by the Bureau of Public
Schools.  Hence, respondent lost its
jurisdiction to review the case.

There is no doubt that the respondent Republic of the Philippines
received a copy of the decision of the
Acting Referee on August
29, 1975 (Annex A, Petition).  There is likewise no doubt that the said
respondent Republic of the Philippines did not file either a peti­tion for
reconsideration or a notice of appeal with the Acting Referee, within the
fifteen-day reglementary period.  However, the respondent Republic of the Philippines, under Rule 22 of the Commission, can still file a petition to elevate
records and for relief from judgment, which said respondent did on October
10, 1975, citing
justifiable grounds therefor.  The petition to elevate records was given due
course by the Commission in its order of January 6, 1976 (Annex D).

It appears that on March 18, 1974, claimant Leoncia
Magat filed with the Workmen’s Compensation Unit,
Regional Office No. 4, Manila, her claim for disability on the basis of her
having been found to be suffering from malignant hypertension, occasioned by
dizziness, headaches and of chest oppression and blurring of vision, being
contracted during and in the course of her employment in the Bureau of Public
Schools as a classroom teacher and later as a principal teacher, per her
physician’s report by Dr. Lilia Ramos Neis contained
in WCC Form No. 4 dated August 29, 1974 (Exhibit B, Original Records).  Dr. Neis further stated that the “rigors of teaching children,
tension and fatigue, mental as well as physical, may aggravate” her
disease contracted since 1969.

The contention of the public respondent that hypertension is
merely a “symptom of a disease and unless it is complicated by
cardio-vascular disease or cerebro-vascular accident,
cannot be considered a disabling illness,” is of no moment for the law
presumes, in the absence of substantial evidence to the contrary, that a claim
is compensable.  So rigid is the rule that
even where the cause of death is unknown the right to compensation subsists,
the underlying philosophy or reason behind the Workmen’s Compensation Act is
that it is a social legislation designed to give relief to the working man
(Industrial Textile Mfg. Co of the Phil. vs. Florzo,
et al., L-21969, August 31, 1966, 17 SCRA 1104; Domingo Vallo
vs. WCC & the Republic of
the Philippines, L-41816, Oct. 29, 1976). 
At any rate, in case of doubt the same should be resolved in favor of
the claimant for the reason that the pro­visions of the Workmen’s Compensation
Act as a piece of social legislation must be liberally construed to attain the
purpose for which it is enacted (Ramon vs. Poblete,
et al., 40 O.G. 3474).  Thus, it has been
held that courts have generally held that a spirit of liberality should
characterize the interpretation of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, for the
reason that it is to be classed as remedial legislation (Int’l. Harvester Co. vs. Industrial Commission, 157 Wis. 167, 147 N.W. 53; Am. Case 1916 B. 330).

WHEREFORE, THE APPEALED DECISION OF THE RESPOND­ENT
WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION IS HEREBY REVERSED AND SET ASIDE AND THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES (BUREAU OF PUBLIC SCHOOLS) IS HEREBY DIRECTED:

A. TO PAY

(1) CLAIMANT LEONCIA MAGAT THE SUM OF P3,993.63
AS COMPENSATION BENEFITS;

(2) CLAIMANT’S EXPENSES FOR
MEDICAL AND HOSPITAL SERVICES DULY SUPPORTED BY PROPER RECEIPTS;

(3) THE SUM OF P300.00 AS ATTORNEY’S FEES; AND

(4) SIXTY-ONE [P61.00] AS ADMINISTRATIVE FEES; AND

B. TO PROVIDE THE CLAIMANT WITH SUCH SERVICES, APPLIANCES AND
SUPPLIES AS THE NATURE OF HER DISABILITY AND THE PROCESS OF HER RECOVERY MAY
REQUIRE AND THAT WHICH WILL PROMOTE HER EARLY RESTORATION TO THE MAXIMUM LEVEL
OF HER PHYSICAL CAPACITY.

SO ORDERED.

Teehankee, (Chairman), Muñoz Palma, Martin, Fernandez, and Guerrero, JJ., concur.