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

Petition for review^[1]
of the decision of the respondent Workmen’s Compensation Commission dated February 25, 1976.

Petitioner Socorro Velez filed on August 18, 1972 before the Department of Labor, Regional
Office No. VIII, Cebu City, a claim for compensation
and other benefits under Act 3428, as amended, for injuries sustained on
January 26, 1966 resulting in “permanent paralysis and loss of use of her
right hand, aside from the permanent partial injury of her spine” forcing
her to optionally retire from the service. 
Controversion having been interposed by
respondent Bureau of Public Schools, the case was heard on the merits.

The facts established at the hearing are sufficiently stated in
the Hearing Officer’s decision dated November
16, 1973, to wit:

“(C)laimant, Socorro Velez, was a
former elementary school teacher assigned at Tejero
Elementary School, Cebu City, with a last salary at
the rate of P3,066.36 per annum (Service Record).  She was the Head Teacher of all the Grade II
classes in the school, and because she is just living across the street and in
front of the school, the Principal Teacher assigned her to be the permanent
bell taker in the morning (t.s.n., March 1, 1973).  At about 6:30
o’clock in the morning of January
26, 1966, while crossing the street from her house to the school
she ran to the direction of the school to avoid a speeding jeep and, in so
doing, she slipped and fell on the cement pathway leading from the gate to the
school building inside the school premises. 
She was thereupon hospitalized at the Cebu City Hospital
under the Medical care of Dr. Oscar Obenza for
“fracture of the spinal vertebra and the right forearm” (Compression
fraction, L2; Celles Fracture, Right).  She was in plaster cast in the hospital from January 26, 1966 up to May 7, 1966, and thereafter confined
in the house to recuperate.  Her
injuries, however, resulted in permanent paralysis and loss of use of her right
hand, aside from the permanent partial injury of her spine.  As a consequence of these physical
incapacities, which rendered her unfit for further service, she was optionally
retired by respondent effective on September
30, 1966.” (Hearing Officer’s Decision,
Annex “B”, p. 1).

Hearing Officer Dionisio T. Tabucanon declared
the claim meritorious and issued a Decision dated November 16, 1973 declaring that petitioner was entitled to
the lump sum of Four Thousand Eight Hundred Fifty-Seven and 06/100 Pesos (P4,857.06) as compensation benefits computed as follows, to
wit:

“Under Section 14 of the Act, she is entitled to compensation
for temporary total disability for labor from January 26, 1966 to July 10, 1966
x x x or a total period of
23-5/7 weeks, at a weekly compensation computed at 60% of her average weekly
wage.  Sixty per centum of her average
weekly wage which was P58.97 (P3,066.36 per annum
divided by 52 weeks) equals P35.38 and for 23-5/7 weeks, she is entitled to
P989.61.

“Under Section 17 of the Act, she is entitled to compensation
for permanent partial disability equivalent to 50% of her average weekly wage
for 30% loss of use of her right hand and 40% for spine (N.S.D.), x x x for 131.2 weeks.  Fifty per centum of her average weekly wage
which was P58.97 equals P29.48, and for 131.2 weeks, she is entitled to P3,867.47.” (Hearing Officer’s
Decision, Annex “B”, p. 1).

No appeal from the decision was interposed by the Republic.  However, petitioner filed on December 7, 1963 a partial
reconsideration of the decision questioning the award for permanent partial
disability (for the loss of use of her right hand).  Petitioner insisted that since the Hearing
Officer made a finding of fact that she sustained permanent paralysis and loss
of use of her right hand, that fact being supported by the Physician’s Report
stating “the extent of permanent loss of use of her right hand is 100%”
(Item 18, Annex “D”), the award of compensation for the “30%
loss of use of her right hand” was erroneous; and that she should be
granted compensation for 100% loss of use of her right hand.

Finding merit in petitioner’s motion for reconsideration, the
Hearing Officer issued on March 8, 1974
an Order modifying the decision of November
16, 1973, granting compensation for the 100% loss of use of petitioner’s
right hand, thus increasing the total award to Five Thousand Eight Hundred Six
Pesos and Forty-One Centavos (P5,806.41).

From this modifying Order, the Solicitor General as counsel for
the Republic, filed a Motion for Reconsideration
seeking correction of the award for petitioner’s temporary total disability
from Nine Hundred Eighty-Nine Pesos and Sixty-One Centavos (P989.61) to Eight
Hundred Thirty-Eight Pesos and Ninety-Nine Centavos (P838.99) alleging error in
computation.  In an Order dated October
4, 1974, the Referee found merit in the Solicitor General’s motion for
reconsideration and then reconsidered its Order of March 8, 1974 and corrected the award for temporary total disability from
Nine Hundred Eighty-Nine Pesos and Sixty-One Centavos (P989.61) to Eight
Hundred Thirty-Nine Pesos and One Centavo (P839.01), not Eight Hundred
Thirty-Eight Pesos and Ninety-Nine Centavos (P838.99) as pointed out by the
Solicitor General in his Motion for Reconsideration.

Finding herself confused because of the piecemeal modifications
of the award, petitioner filed on October
15, 1974 with the Regional Office an Urgent Motion for
Clarification of the Compensation Awards. 
Acting on said motion, the Hearing Officer issued an Order dated November 8, 1974, clarifying the
awards as follows:

“1.  Compensation in the amount of P839.01 (60% of
P58.97 – her average weekly wage – for 23-5/7 weeks) for temporary total
disability for labor from January 26, 1966 to July 10, 1966, under Section 14
of the Act.

“2.  Compensation in the amount of P4,716.80 (50%
of P58.97 for 160 weeks) for 100% loss of use of her right hand, according to
the findings of her attending physician, Dr. Oscar Obenza
of the Cebu City Hospital, under Section 17 of the
Act.

“3.  Compensation in the amount of P2,452.73 (50% of P58.97 for 83.2 weeks) for the 40% permanent
partial disability (N.S.D.) involving her spine, according to the findings of
the Medical Officer of this Office.

“Adding all the above amounts will give a total of P8,008.55.  But the law
limits compensation benefits to a maximum of P6,000.00.  (Sec. 18 of Act 3428, as amended).  Accordingly, the compensation of the claimant
should be P6,000.00 only.  With this amount as her compensation, the fee
of her lawyer should be P300.00 (5% of P6,000.00) as
provided in Section 31 of the Act.  The
decision fee also becomes P61.00, pursuant to Section 55 of the Act.

x x x

“This Order is issued not only for clarification purposes but
also to modify the Decision, dated November
16, 1973, the Order of March
8, 1974 and the Order of October
4, 1974.”

From this clarifying and modifying Order, the Solicitor General
filed a motion for reconsideration dated December 12, 1974 taking exception to
the total award granted and maintaining that the only compensation payable is
the award under Section 14 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, as amended, in
the amount of Eight Hundred Thirty-Nine Pesos and One Centavo (P839.01) and the
award under Section 17 of the said Act in the sum of Three Thousand Eight
Hundred Sixty-Seven Pesos and Forty-One Centavos (P3,867.41) as allegedly so
disposed in the Order of October 4, 1974. 
Opposition thereto was filed by petitioner.  Without granting the Motion for
Reconsideration, the entire records of the case were elevated to the Workmen’s
Compensation Commission for review.

On review, the respondent Workmen’s Compensation Commission
reversed the findings of the Hearing Officer and dismissed the claim on the
grounds that the claim was without merit because there was no wage-loss
involved as claimant retired voluntarily because of old age.

Thereupon, petitioner filed this petition for review contending
that “far from limiting its review on the lone issue raised – the correct
amount of compensation benefits due the claimant – the Commission has gone out
of its way with evident attitude of stricture and dismissed the claim x x x.” (Petition,
p. 4).

Petitioner’s contention is well-taken.  There is no doubt that the lone issue raised
for review to the respondent Commission is only the question of what is the
proper amount of compensation petitioner is entitled to.  The issue of the compensability of her claim
was not raised in issue throughout the proceedings after the Hearing Officer
rendered its Decision of November 16,
1973 which found the claim compensable.  Subsequent proceedings disclose motions for
reconsideration filed by both parties questioning the compensation benefits
awarded, but not the compensability of the claim itself.  Therefore, the issue of the compensability of
petitioner’s claim stands finally adjudicated insofar as respondent employer
(Republic) was concerned for failure to take an appeal therefrom,
and respondent Commission acted in excess of authority and with grave abuse of
discretion in dismissing the claim for lack of merit.  The most that the Commission could have done,
then, was to simply maintain the award stated in the Order of the Hearing
Officer dated November 8, 1974, resolving petitioner’s Motion for Clarification
of the awards, or to make a computation of its own, but certainly it could not
reverse the Award and absolve respondent Republic from all liability on the
inexistent ground of non-compensability which was not even in issue nor claimed
by respondent itself.^[2]

Clearly, the
compensability of petitioner’s claim is meritorious and its adjudication
in her favor is final.  The only question
that remains to be resolved is the correctness of the award set out in the
Order of November 8, 1974,
the correctness of which depends not on the point of mathematical computations,
but from the view of whether or not the disabilities for which compensation was
awarded, exist.

The Physician’s Report attached to the records of the case states
that the “injury caused temporary total disability for labor from January
26 to July 10, 1966 or for
23-3/7 weeks” (Item 14).  The fact
of this disability is not disputed by the respondent Republic; it only moved to
reconsider the award given in the Decision of November 16, 1973 in the amount of Nine Hundred
Eighty-Nine Pesos and Sixty-One Centavos (P989.61) alleging mathematical error
in computation.  By Order of the Hearing
Officer dated October 4, 1974,
the amount was corrected and reduced to Eight Hundred Thirty-Nine Pesos and One
Centavo (P839.01).  From this amending
Order, the Republic did not file or interpose an objection; neither did
petitioner.  Hence, as We
find a factual basis for the compensation given for petitioner’s temporary
total disability, the award thereon in the amount of P839.01 stands as so
ordered under paragraph 1 of the clarificatory and
modifying Order of November 8, 1974.

Paragraph 2 of the above clarificatory
and modifying Order granted Four Thousand Seven Hundred Sixteen Pesos and
Eighty Centavos (P4,716.80) for compensation due to the 100(%) per centum loss
of use of petitioner’s right hand.  The
physician’s report verified the given percentage of disability (Items 17 &
18).  The Decision of November 16, 1973
issued by the Hearing Officer stated categorically that “(H)er injuries, however, resulted in permanent paralysis and
loss of use of her right hand x x” Hence, We
find no reversible error in the Order of November 8, 1974 granting compensation
for this disability under Section 17 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, as
amended.

The third paragraph awarded compensation for the 40% permanent
disability (N.S.D.) of petitioner’s spine. 
Again, the fact of disability is clearly stated in the Hearing Officer’s
decision of November 16, 1973,
to wit, “(S)he was thereupon hospitalized at the Cebu City Hospital
under the Medical care of Dr. Oscar Obenza for
fracture of the spinal vertebra xxx.  Her
injuries, however, resulted in permanent paralysis and loss of use of her right
hand, aside from the permanent partial injury of her spine.” Petitioner is
entitled to the compensation granted her in said paragraph in the sum of P2,452.73.

But a cursory glance of the several amounts awarded as
compensation reveals a sum total exceeding the maximum of Six Thousand Pesos
(P6,000.00) allowed by law by way of compensation
benefits under Act 3428, as amended. 
Accordingly, the award in the amount of only Six Thousand Pesos (P6,000.00) is correct. 
The counsel’s fee of Three Hundred Pesos (P300.00), however, should be
increased to Six Hundred Pesos (P600.00) or 10% of the compensation benefits.

WHEREFORE, the decision of the Workmen’s Compensation
Commission sought to be reviewed is set aside and the clarificatory
and modifying Order of November 8,
1974 is reinstated, with a partial modification increasing the
attorney’s fees to Six Hundred Pesos (P600.00).

SO ORDERED.

Teehankee, (Chairman), Makasiar, Fernandez, De Castro, and Melencio-Herrera, JJ., concur.

^[1]
Treated as a special civil action per resolution of September 1, 1976.

^[2]
Ruelan v. Republic, 70 SCRA 615.