BONIFACIA U. PACARRO, PETITIONER, VS. SECRETARY OF LABOR, (COMPENSATION APPEALS AND REVIEW STAFF), WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION AND BUREAU OF PUBLIC SCHOOLS, RESPONDENTS.

Pacarro versus Secretary of Labor

The Case

This is a petition for review brought by Bonifacia U. Pacarro, a grade school teacher of the Bureau of Public Schools, against the Secretary of Labor, the Compensation Appeals and Review Staff, the Workmen's Compensation Commission, and the Bureau of Public Schools. She asks the Supreme Court to reverse the Commission's denial of her claim for disability benefits and reimbursement of medical expenses arising from pulmonary tuberculosis contracted in the course of her employment. The case matters because it settles a question examiners love: whether an employee who has already received optional retirement pay may still recover disability compensation, and how the ten-day appeal period before the Supreme Court is counted when a motion for reconsideration intervenes.

Procedural History

Pacarro filed her claim with the Workmen's Compensation Unit in Dipolog City. The Unit issued an award in her favor, ordering the Bureau of Public Schools to pay disability benefits, medical expense reimbursement, attorney's fees, and award fees. On appeal, the Workmen's Compensation Commission en banc set aside the award and dismissed the claim, reasoning that she had returned to work after her sick leave and retired on the basis of her retirable age and length of service, not because of any incapacitating disease. Pacarro moved for reconsideration, but the Compensation Appeals and Review Staff of the Office of the Secretary of Labor denied the motion. She then filed a notice of appeal and a motion for extension of time to file a petition for review with the Supreme Court, and the case reached the Court by petition for review.

Facts

From November 1938 until her optional retirement at the age of sixty-two, Bonifacia U. Pacarro served as a grade school teacher in the Oroquieta City Division of the Bureau of Public Schools. In 1965 she began having frequent coughs and colds, recurring whenever she was exposed to sudden weather changes and heavy school work. In 1967 a chest X-ray showed minimal pulmonary tuberculosis, and medication was prescribed. In July 1972 her illness worsened; wracked with cough, fever, and headache despite medication, she was brought to the Cebu TB Pavilion, where a second X-ray revealed moderately advanced tuberculosis on the right lung and minimal on the left. The physician advised rest and drug therapy, and she went on a two-month sick leave, then resumed working until her optional retirement was approved, effective June 1974. For more than thirty years of service she received a lump sum retirement pay equivalent to five years' salary.

On September 30, 1974, she filed a notice of injury or sickness and claim for compensation with the Workmen's Compensation Unit in Dipolog City. Her employer, the Bureau of Public Schools, did not controvert the claim. The Unit issued an award in her favor.

On appeal, the Commission set aside the award, holding that she was not suffering from tuberculosis at the time she retired and had retired on the basis of her retirable age and length of service. A subsequent X-ray taken in November 1974, more than four months after her retirement, showed that although the lesion on her right lung had healed, fibrosis remained, meaning her resistance to latent tuberculosis infection was still weak and maintenance therapy was necessary.

Issues

• Whether or not the petitioner is entitled to disability benefits and refund of medical expenses after having been paid her full retirement benefits, considering that at the time of her retirement there was allegedly no substantial evidence that she was still afflicted with tuberculosis.
• Whether or not the decision of the Workmen's Compensation Commission had become final and executory in view of the petitioner's alleged failure to timely appeal therefrom.

Applicable Provisions

Section 1, Rule 18 of the Workmen's Compensation Commission Rules provides:

Time of Appeal. - Any party in interest may appeal from any decision or order of the Commission en banc to the Supreme Court within ten days from receipt of said decision or order in the manner provided for under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court.

This fixes the ten-day period and the manner of appeal, which the Court uses to test whether Pacarro's recourse was seasonable.

Section 4, Rule 43 of the Rules of Court provides:

Period for filing. - Appeals from an order, ruling or decision of the x x x; and those from the Court of Industrial Relations, the Civil Aeronautics Board, the Workmen's Compensation Commission, and the Commission on Elections, within a period of ten days.

This confirms that appeals from the Workmen's Compensation Commission must be perfected within ten days, counted from notice of the ruling appealed from.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court ruled in favor of Pacarro. Contrary to the Commission's findings, there was ample evidence that she had not fully recovered from tuberculosis when she opted for early retirement. The November 1974 X-ray showing residual fibrosis and the need for maintenance therapy proved she was not completely cured more than four months after retirement; otherwise, no further treatment would have been prescribed. The Court also noted that she was only sixty-two at retirement, three years short of the compulsory age, so it was inaccurate to say she retired on the basis of her retirable age. She retired because, in her debilitated state, she could no longer cope with the arduous tasks of a classroom teacher. The Court held that an employee forced to ask for retirement ahead of schedule, not because of old age but principally because of weakened bodily condition due to illness contracted in the course of employment, should be given compensation for inability to work during the remaining days before scheduled retirement, aside from retirement benefits received. Receipt of optional retirement pay does not preclude disability compensation, for approval of the application places beyond doubt the employee's physical incapacity to render further efficient service. The Court added that the law is explicit that an employer held liable for disability compensation must also provide medical, surgical, and hospital services, appliances, and supplies as the nature of the debility and the process of recovery may require.

On the second issue, the Court likewise ruled for Pacarro. She had been granted an extension of ten days to file a motion for reconsideration, which she filed on the last day. The denial was received on August 26, 1977, and on September 5, 1977, the last day of the reglementary period, she simultaneously filed a notice of appeal and a motion for extension of time to file a petition for review. The Court held that, there being no finding that the motion for reconsideration was merely pro forma, it effectively tolled the running of the period for perfecting an appeal, so she still had ten days from August 26, 1977, or up to September 5, 1977, to seek recourse. The appeal was therefore seasonably made.

Doctrine

First, the receipt of optional retirement pay does not preclude a claimant from enjoying disability compensation. The approval of an application for optional retirement places beyond doubt the employee's physical incapacity to render further efficient service, and an employee forced to retire ahead of schedule, not because of old age but principally because of a weakened bodily condition due to illness contracted in the course of employment, is entitled to compensation for inability to work during the remaining days before scheduled retirement, in addition to retirement benefits. Second, an employer held liable for disability compensation must also provide medical, surgical, and hospital services, appliances, and supplies as the nature of the debility and the process of recovery may require. Third, a timely motion for reconsideration that is not pro forma tolls the running of the ten-day period to appeal under Section 1, Rule 18 of the Workmen's Compensation Commission Rules and Section 4, Rule 43 of the Rules of Court.

Disposition

The Court reversed the decision of the Workmen's Compensation Commission and reinstated the original award granting disability benefits and medical expense reimbursement to Pacarro, with the modification that the employer pay the prescribed administrative fees of 61 pesos to the Department of Labor and attorney's fees increased to 600 pesos.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing: optional retirement pay does not bar disability compensation, because approval of optional retirement itself proves physical incapacity to render further efficient service. Examiners use this case to test the interplay between retirement benefits and workmen's compensation, and to test the tolling effect of a non-pro forma motion for reconsideration on the ten-day appeal period.