VICENTE BERENGUEL, PETITIONER, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, (BUREAU OF PUBLIC SCHOOLS), RESPONDENT.

Berenguel versus Republic of the Philippines

The Case

This is a petition for review on certiorari filed by Vicente Berenguel, a public school teacher, against the Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Bureau of Public Schools. Berenguel sought to reverse the decision of the Workmen's Compensation Commission, which had dismissed his claim for disability benefits and medical expense reimbursement. The case matters because it illustrates the operation of the statutory presumption of compensability under the Workmen's Compensation Act, the effect of a claimant's optional retirement on his right to disability benefits, and the standard of proof — probability, not certainty — that governs claims under the old law.

Procedural History

Berenguel filed his claim for disability benefits with the regional office of the Workmen's Compensation Unit. The Acting Referee granted the claim, awarding disability benefits for the period he was unable to work due to pulmonary tuberculosis, reimbursing his medical expenses, and ordering payment of the prescribed fee. On appeal, the Associate Medical Commissioner of the Workmen's Compensation Commission reversed the Acting Referee and dismissed the claim for lack of merit. Berenguel's motion for reconsideration was denied by the Compensation Appeals and Review Staff. He then elevated the matter to the Supreme Court through a petition for review on certiorari.

Facts

Vicente Berenguel had been a teacher with the Bureau of Public Schools since 1946. In the course of his employment, he was confined at the Tuberculosis Sanitarium of Quezon Institute in Quezon City from November 16, 1957 to April 17, 1958, due to chronic and active pulmonary tuberculosis. Before he retired from the government service at the age of 63 in 1969, he was treated at St. Luke's Hospital from July 16 to October 25, 1969 for a minimal fibrotic lesion, and he underwent an operation on his right thyroid lobe because of nodules.

On March 31, 1975, Berenguel filed a claim for disability benefits for various illnesses, namely, indirect inguinal hernia on the left, varicose veins, minimal pulmonary tuberculosis, atelectasis of the right lung, and chronic cholecystitis. The Acting Referee granted him disability benefits corresponding to the actual period he was unable to work on account of his pulmonary tuberculosis, from July 16, 1969 to October 25, 1969, and reimbursed his medical expenses as recommended by the Compensation Rating Medical Officer.

On appeal, the Workmen's Compensation Commission reversed the award. The Commissioner ruled that the chest x-ray presented by Berenguel was taken only on October 6, 1975, did not show any illness of pulmonary tuberculosis, and could not in any event support the alleged tuberculosis in 1969. The Commissioner also rejected the medical expense reimbursement because the receipts were all dated after Berenguel's retirement, and advised him to avail himself of his terminal leave for the period he did not report for work.

Issues

• Whether or not the Workmen's Compensation Commission erred in reversing the findings of the Acting Referee that the claimant's pulmonary tuberculosis is causally related to his employment and that the other sicknesses were incurred in the course of that employment.
• Whether or not the Workmen's Compensation Commission erred in reversing the grant of reimbursement of medical expenses.

Applicable Provisions

Section 14 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, as amended, provides:

Total disability. In case the injury or sickness causes temporary total disability for labor, the employer shall, during such disability, pay to the injured employee a weekly compensation equivalent to sixty per centum of his average weekly wage but not less than fourteen pesos per week, except in the case provided for in the next following paragraph. No compensation shall be allowed for the first three calendar days of incapacity resulting from an injury except the benefits provided for in the preceding section; but if the incapacity extends beyond that period, compensation shall be allowed from the first day of such incapacity. Such weekly payments shall in no case continue after the disability has ceased, nor shall the aggregate sum paid as compensation exceed in any case six thousand pesos. But no award of permanent disability shall take effect until after two weeks have elapsed from the date of injury.

This provision supplies the measure of disability compensation and its statutory ceiling, which the Court applied in modifying the award.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court ruled in favor of Berenguel. It held that under the Workmen's Compensation Act, once the claimant has established that the illness supervened at the time of his employment, there exists a rebuttable presumption that the illness arose out of, or was at least aggravated by, his employment. The claimant is thus relieved of the burden of proving causation once the illness is shown to have arisen in the course of employment, and the burden to overthrow the presumption by substantial evidence rests on the employer. The Court found that the respondent presented no evidence to overcome the presumption, while Berenguel presented a medical certificate attesting that in 1969 he still suffered from the same ailment.

The Court rejected the argument that Berenguel was not yet covered by the Workmen's Compensation Act when he contracted tuberculosis in 1957, because public school teachers came within its coverage only in 1964. The Court held that the fact he was not yet within the coverage of the law does not alter the established fact that his illness was contracted during his employment. The Court likewise rejected the argument that his retirement at 63 was voluntary rather than due to a disabling ailment, finding that on October 25, 1969, at the end of his leave of absence, he was still very sick and was not allowed to return to work, and that it was in the interest of the school children that he be required to retire so as not to contaminate them. The Court also held that an x-ray result is not an indispensable prerequisite to compensation.

On the second issue, the Court found merit in Berenguel's contention. It held that the findings of fact of the Workmen's Compensation Unit of the regional office are like findings of fact of the lower courts, which must be upheld and taken as true and correct and not undermined by appellate courts in the absence of strong and cogent reasons. The amount of medical benefits as evaluated by the Compensation Rating Medical Officer ought to be upheld. The fact that the medical expenses were all dated after retirement was of no moment, because the test of compensability under the old Workmen's Compensation Law is probability and not certainty, and that test was satisfied.

Doctrine

Once a claimant establishes that his illness supervened at the time of his employment, a rebuttable presumption arises that the illness arose out of, or was at least aggravated by, the employment. The claimant is relieved of the burden of proving causation, and the employer bears the burden of overthrowing the presumption by substantial evidence. The fact that the illness was contracted before the claimant came within the coverage of the Workmen's Compensation Act does not alter the fact that it was contracted during his employment. An optional retirement does not defeat a claim for disability benefits where the evidence shows the employee was forced to retire because of his disability. An x-ray result is not an indispensable prerequisite to compensation, and the test of compensability under the old law is probability, not certainty. These rules are tied to Section 14 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, which fixes the measure and ceiling of disability compensation.

Disposition

The Court reversed the decision of the Workmen's Compensation Commission and reinstated the original award of the Acting Referee granting disability benefits and medical expense reimbursement to Berenguel, with the modification that the disability benefits should be 6,000 pesos, that the respondent should pay 61 pesos in prescribed fees to the Ministry of Labor and Employment, and with an award of 600 pesos in attorney's fees.

Remember This

Memorize the rule that once the illness supervenes during employment, a rebuttable presumption of compensability arises and the employer must overthrow it by substantial evidence. Examiners use this case to test the presumption of compensability, the effect of optional retirement on disability claims, and the probability standard under the old Workmen's Compensation Law.