G.R. No. L-29540. March 27, 1981
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. PATROCINIO POLLOSCO AND WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, RESPONDENTS.
FERNANDEZ, J.:
This is a petition for certiorari to review the decision of
the Workmen’s Compensation Commission in R04-WCC-Case No. 91, entitled “Patrocinio Pollosco, Claimant vs.
Republic of the Philippines (Bureau of Public Highways), Respondent”,
affirming the decision of the Acting Referee in Regional Office No. 4, Quezon City Sub-Regional Office, Workmen’s Compensation
Commission but modifying said decision by increasing
the disability compensation to P4,000.00.[1]
The claimant, Patrocinio Pollosco, was an employee
of the Bureau of Public Highways. When
he was already 63 years old, he ceased to work because he contracted pulmonary
tuberculosis during his employment. He
filed a claim for disability and medical benefit with Regional Office No. 4, Quezon City Sub-Regional Office, Department of Labor.
The Acting Referee rendered
a decision dated December 29, 1966, the dispositive
portion of which reads:
“WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered ordering respondent to
pay claimant, through this Office, the following amounts in lump sum:
1. TWO THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED ONE & 84/100
PESOS (P2,101.84) as disability compensation; and
2. FIVE THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED PESOS (P5,100.00)
as for reimbursement of medical expenses.
“Respondent is further ordered to pay direct to this Office the
sum of TWENTY TWO PESOS (P22.00) as administrative fee pursuant to Section 55
of the Act.
“SO ORDERED.
“Quezon City,
Philippines, December 29, 1966.”[2]
On January 13, 1967, the Republic of the Philippines (Bureau of Public
Highways), petitioner herein, filed with the Workmen’s Compensation Commission,
Regional Office No. 4 at Quezon City Sub-Regional
Office, a motion for reconsideration of the decision of the Acting Referee,
only with respect to the award to the claimant of the sum of P5,100.00 as
reimbursement of medical expenses, on the ground that the penultimate
paragraph of Section 13 of Act 3428, as amended by Republic Act 4119 was not
complied with, but not with respect to the compensability of the claim nor the
amount of disability compensation awarded to the said respondent.[3]
On January 16, 1967,
the private respondent Pollosco, filed a motion for
partial execution of the decision of the Acting Referee dated December 29, 1966, as regards the
disability compensation awarded to the claimant. Acting on said motion, the Chief of Section
of Regional Office No. 4 issued an order dated January 18, 1967 directing the petitioner to pay unto the
respondent Pollosco the sum of P2,101.84 as
disability compensation.
On January 17, 1967,
Acting Referee Pedro P. Pelaez issued an Order
forwarding to the Workmen’s Compensation Commission the entire records of the
case for review.[4]
The Workmen’s
Compensation Commission, through one of its Commissioners, rendered a decision,
the dispositive portion of which reads:
“WHEREFORE, the decision sought to be reviewed is affirmed and
the respondent is hereby ordered:
1. To pay claimant thru this Commission the sum
of FOUR THOUSAND PESOS (P4,000.00) as compensation under Sections 14 and 15 of
Act 3428, as amended;
2. To reimburse the claimant the sum of EIGHT
HUNDRED SEVENTY FIVE PESOS (P875.00) for medical expenses he incurred for his
compensable illness of tuberculosis and to provide him with whatever medical
assistance he may need until his
illness is pronounced arrested or cured by competent authority under Section 13
of Act No. 3428, as amended;
3. To pay attorney’s fees in the sum of P400
under Section 30 of Act No. 3428, as amended; and
4. To pay the Workmen’s Compensation Fund the
sum of FORTY-SIX PESOS (P46.00) (plus P5.00 cost of the review) as fees under
Section 55 of Act No. 3428, as amended.
“SO ORDERED.
“Quezon City,
May 31, 1968.”[5]
The motion for reconsideration of the petitioner was denied by
the Workmen’s Compensation Commission en banc.[6]
The petitioner assigned
the following errors:
“I
“THE COMMISSION EN BANC
ERRED IN MODIFYING THE DECISION DATED DECEMBER 29, 1966 OF ACTING REFEREE PEDRO
P. PELAEZ AND IN ORDERING THE PETITIONER TO PAY RESPONDENT POLLOSCO THE TOTAL
SUM OF P4,000.00 WHEN THE SAID DECISION HAD BECOME FINAL AND EXECUTORY.
“II
“THE COMMISSION EN BANC
ERRED IN DISREGARDING THE RULING LAID DOWN BY THIS HONORABLE COURT IN THE CASE
OF HERNANDEZ VERSUS WORKMEN’S
COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL., G.R. NO. L-20202, MAY 31, 1965.”[7]
It is a fact that no appeal was taken either by the petitioner or
the private respondent Patrocinio Pollosco from the decision of the Acting Referee as regards
that portion ordering the petitioner to pay the claimant, Patrocinio
Pollosco, the amount of P2,101.84 as disability
compensation. Indeed the claimant had
asked for the execution of said portion of the decision and the petitioner was
directed to pay the private respondent Pollosco the sum of P2,101.84.
The award for disability compensation having become final and executory, the same may not be modified by the Workmen’s
Compensation Commission.
In Carreon vs. Workmen’s Compensation Commission,[8]
this Court said:
“In Vitug vs. Republic, (L-44890,
Feb. 28, 1977), we once again
reaffirmed our ruling in Ramos vs. Republic, 69 SCRA 576 (Feb. 27, 1976), that
‘(the) basic rule of finality of judgments is applicable indiscriminately to
one and all and regardless of whether respondent employer be a public or
private employer, since the rule is grounded on fundamental considerations of
public policy and sound practice that at risk of occasional error, the judgment
of courts and award of quasijudicial agencies
must become final at some definite dated fixed by law.”
The Workmen’s Compensation Commission, therefore, clearly erred
in modifying the award by increasing the amount to P4,000.00.
Moreover, the computation
of the award of P2,101.84 by the Acting Referee is correct. He computed the amount thus:
“The claimant having been shown to have been disabled for
labor as a result of his illness and was by reason thereof compelled to retire
prematurely at the age of 63 years, 2 years away from the compulsory retirement
age of 65 years, he is entitled to disability compensation for two (2) years
and reimbursement of expense for medical supplies and services since the
requirements of notice of the illness and corresponding treatment has been
substantially complied with.
“Under Sections 14 and 15 of Act 3428 as amended, having been
totally and permanently disabled for labor, and in the light of the rule laid
down by the Supreme Court in the case
of Hernandez vs. W.C.C. et al., G.R. NO. L-20202, May 31, 1965, claimant is
entitled to disability compensation in an amount equivalent to 60% of his
average weekly wage for a maximum period of two (2) years, or 104 weeks, the
aggregate amount not to exceed P4,000.00.
By the evidence his last rate of pay was P146.00 a month or P1,752.00
per annum (P1,752.00 divided by 52 equals P33.69) 60% of which is P20.21
for 104 weeks, gives P2,101.84 as disability compensation.”[9]
In Ciriaco Hernandez vs. Workmen’s
Compensation Commission, et al., G.R. NO. L-20202, May 31, 1965,[10]
this Court said that compensation payments premised on loss or impairment of
earning, capacity due to illness cannot extend beyond the compulsory retirement
date of an employee.
The award of P2,101.84 to
the private respondent will not be deducted from the gratuity which he was
entitled to receive when he reached the age of 65 years. Anent this matter, the petitioner states in
its brief:
“Respondent Commission’s differentiation between the
Workmen’s Compensation Law and the Retirement Law is beside the point. Petitioner admits that the purposes of the
said laws are different. Petitioner
does not deny also that respondent Pollosco is
entitled both to the benefits of the Workmen’s Compensation Law and the
Retirement Law. In the first instance,
because he contracted illness in the course of his employment with petitioner
and in the second, because he applied for retirement under the Retirement
Law. In the case at bar, petitioner does
not contend that any benefit which respondent Pollosco
will receive under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, as amended, should be
deducted from the benefit which he would receive as gratuity and therefore
diminishes his compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Law.”[11]
The Workmen’s Compensation Commission also erred in the
computation of the disability benefit to be awarded to the private respondent.
WHEREFORE, the portion of the decision dated May 31, 1968
of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission ordering the petitioner to pay
respondent Pollosco the sum of P4,000.00 as
disability compensation is hereby set aside and the decision dated December 29,
1966 of Acting Referee Pedro P. Pelaez
ordering petitioner to pay respondent Pollosco
the sum of P2,101.84 as disability compensation is affirmed.
SO ORDERED.
Teehankee, (Chairman), Guerrero, De
Castro, and Melencio-Herrera,
JJ., concur.
Makasiar, J., no part.
[1] Annex “E”, Rollo, pp. 19-42.
[2] Rollo, p. 14.
[3] Brief for the Petitioner, p. 3.
[4] Idem., pp. 3-4.
[5] Rollo, p. 22.
[6] Rollo, pp. 24-25.
[7] Brief for the Petitioner, pp. 1-2.
[8]
77 SCRA 297, 300.
[9] Annex “A”, Rollo,
pp. 13-14.
[10] 14 SCRA 219.
[11] Brief for the Petitioner, p. 9.