MAURICIO BELLO, PETITIONER, VS. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, BENEDICTO DINGLASAN & SONS, INC. AND HECTOR LAGMAN, RESPONDENTS.

Petitioner Mauricio Bello seeks a review of the decision of respondent
Workmen’s Compensation Commission rendered on February 23, 1976 in R04-WCU Case
No. 161021 which granted petitioner only the lump sum of P178.28 as disability
compensation benefit in con­trast to the award made by the Acting Chief of the
Workmen’s Compensation Section, R04, Manila on March 19, 1975 requiring private
respondent Hector Lagman to pay petitioner the amount of Seven Hundred Ninety
Six Pesos and 80/100 (P796.80) and the weekly compensation of P33.60 beginning
March 20, 1975 until his illness is cured or arrested or his liability for labor
ceases provided it does not exceed P6,000.00.

From the findings of the
respondent Commission, it appears that petitioner was an employee of respondent
Lagman, a jeepney operator.  Petitioner was found sick with “pulmonary
tuberculosis, chronic, moderately advanced predominantly fibrotics”, by his
attending physician Dr. Fabian Medina, who declared on October 30, 1974 that
said illness was aggravated by his employment.  Petitioner was confined at
Quezon Institute from May 27, 1971 up to June 20, 1971 when he was discharged,
much improved, after which he resumed working.  He was again found sick, this
time, of bacterial conjunctivities from September 20, 1974 to October 16,
1974.

On November 8, 1974, petitioner filed a claim for disability
compensation, so an award was made by the Acting Chief, Workmen’s Compensation
Section of Region 4 on the ground that respondent did not controvert said
claim.  Respondent Lagman moved to set aside the award.  This was granted
despite the opposition of petitioner and the case was treated as a controverted
claim before the Hearing Officer who dismissed petitioner’s claim for lack of
merit.  On appeal, the Workmen’s Compensation Commission applied the legal
presumption under Section 44 of the WCC Act as amended, sustained the
compensability of the claim, absolved Benedicto Dinglasan and Sons, Inc. from
any liability, made respondent Lagman liable being claimant’s employer at the
time he was af­flicted with tuberculosis and granted temporary total disability
to claimant from May 27, 1971 to June 20, 1971 and from September 20, 1974 to
October 16, 1974 amounting to P178.28 which is 60% of his weekly average pay of
P40.00 (See Annex A, Petition, page 21, Rollo).

It is undisputed
that petitioner was afflicted with pulmonary tuberculosis during the course of
his employment.  The only issue to be resolved here is whether or not under the
circumstances obtaining in this case, he should be granted full compensation
benefits.

We find the petition meritorious and so hold that full
compen­sation benefit is in order.

While it may be true, as respondent
Commission points out that no chest x-ray report was submitted to establish
petitioner’s illness of pulmonary tuberculosis and confinement at Quezon
Institute, it has been resolved in many cases of this nature that the doctor’s
certifi­cation as to the nature of claimant’s disability may be given credence
as he normally, would not make a false certification.^[1] Moreover, laboratory reports are not
indispensable prerequisite to compensability of claim and the absence of an
x-ray report cannot prejudice such claim^[2].  This Court even went to the extent of
declaring that to be compensable, it is enough that the hypothesis on which the
workmen’s claim is based is probable.  Medical opinion to the contrary can be
disregarded.^[3] Indeed, the niceties and
refinements of technical rules on procedure must give way to effect substantial
justice to the claimant^[4].

The
WCC’s decision under review, granted disability benefits to petitioner solely
for the period he was confined at the hospital.  The Commission in
granting a meager amount stated thus:  “x x x claimant is entitled to temporary
total disability for labor from May 27, 1971 up to June 20, 1971, and then
September 20, 1974 up to October 16, 1974.   x x x”

This should not be
so.  In proving his entitlement to compensation benefits, petitioner submitted
the following:

1. Physician’s Report of sickness, signed by petitioner’s attending physician,
   Dr. Fabian Medina of the Quezon Institute, on October 30, 1974;

2. Certification of the Chief, Out-Patient Service of Q.I. dated October 25,
   1974 showing that petitioner had chest x-ray examinations on various dates from
   May 27, 1971 to July 11, 1974;

3. Medical Certificate signed by Dr. Gregorio Noriega, Medical Specialist of
   the National Tuberculosis Center Clinic, Manila, dated March 7,
   1975;

4. Memorandum for the Acting Chief of the Workmen’s Compensation Section, by
   Dr. Edmund Calaycay, Com­pensation Rating Medical Officer of said Section, dated
   March 10, 1975.

It is noted that all said certifications declared tuberculosis as
petitioner’s ailment.  The disease occurred not only on May 27, 1971 but
recurred on various dates in 1974 and 1975^[5].  It is therefore error for the respondent
Commission to award only the sum of P178.28 to petitioner especially considering
that Section 2 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act as amended, provides that an
employee who suffers from tuberculosis “directly caused by such employment, or
either aggravated by or the result of the nature of such employment”, is
entitled to compensation.  There are numerous cases^[6] involving substantially similar conditions
as that of herein petitioner, wherein this Court ruled that tuberculosis is an
occupational disease, hence, compensable.

In the present case, petitioner
is entitled to full compensation.  He has been rendered incapable of further
pursuing his usual work because of his weakened bodily condition due to illness
contracted in the course of employment.

Finally, the Court observes that
the award of P178.28 is so unsubstantial and unrealistic considering present-day
economic standard and financial realities.  To sustain such a petty award would
render meaningless the purpose of the law and the social justice precept it
guarantees.

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the decision of respondent
Workmen’s Compensation Commission dated February 23, 1976 is SET ASIDE and
respondent Hector Lagman is hereby ordered to pay petitioner the sum of SIX
THOUSAND PESOS (P6,000.00) as disability compensation and to pay Counsel of
petitioner attorney’s fees equivalent to 10% of the recoverable amount, with
costs against respondent Lagman. SO ORDERED.

Yap, (Chairman),
Narvasa, Cruz, and Sarmiento, JJ., concur. Melencio-Herrera and
Feliciano, JJ., on leave.