PERFECTO BONILLA, PETITIONER, VS. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.

Pedro Bonilla was employed as a
latheman (machinist-mechanic) in the Engineering
Department of Franklin Baker Company sometime in September, 1952. His work was
irregular but his average weekly wage was P39.20. On January 20, 1961, while
tightening the independent chuck of the lathe, he felt pain in his “puson” and scrotum for which reason the company physician
Dr. Dominador Gesmundo
recommended his hospitalization. He was confined at the San Pablo City Hospital
where he was treated for hernia for about seven days. He returned to work on
February 6, 1961, but after working for about five hours, he stopped because he
again felt pain in his scrotum. On June 2, 1961, he was operated on for hernia
and was released from the hospital on June 12, 1961. He resumed his work on July
29, 1961 but later was not able to continue for which reason he was given an aid
in the amount of P294.26 as benefit under the company’s non-occupational sick
leave plan.

As a consequence of his sickness,
Bonilla filed a claim for compensation before Regional Office No. 5 of San Pablo
City of which his employer was duly notified. The latter, while admitting that
claimant had been confined for sometime at the San Pablo City Hospital, claims
that he was not treated for hernia but of some bodily injury and of chicken pox.

After the claim was heard on the
merits, Hearing Officer Domingo A. Reyes rendered decision approving the claim
and ordering the employer to pay claimant the sum of P512.02 minus the amount of
P294.26 which was already given him under the employer’s non-occupational
disability plan, plus the amount of P5.00 as filing fee and the amount of P25.00
as attorney’s fees.

On appeal taken by the employer
to the Workmen’s Compensation Commission, Commissioner Cesareo Perez reversed the decision on the ground that there
is no causal relationship between the sickness of claimant and the nature of his
work. This decision was affirmed by the Commission en banc. The case is
now before us on a petition for review.

The only issue to be determined
is whether the sickness of hernia which claimant had suffered during his
employment arose out of, or was aggravated by, the nature of his work and as
such is subject to compensation under the law.

There seems to be no dispute that
the sickness of hernia suffered by claimant started while he was still a student
with the result that when he began working with respondent company as a latheman or a machinist-mechanic sometime in September, 1952
that sickness had already been contracted. However, it was only on January 20,
1961, or after the lapse of 9 years and 4 months, that claimant: complained of
the recurrence of that sickness for which reason he was hospitalized.
Significantly, during that interregnum, claimant did not make any complaint nor
did ho ever bring to the attention of the employer’s physician that he was
suffering from that sickness. This long silence has given rise to the impression
that the recurrence of the sickness was not really due to the nature of the work
of the claimant but simply to ordinary causes that come forth because of daily
wear and tear of the human body as a concomitant result of his work in the shop
of the company.

Nevertheless, to determine in a
manner that may set the mind at rest as to the existence, if any, of the causal
relation between claimant’s sickness and his work, the employer referred the
case to the Evaluation Division of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission for a
medical opinion. And on September 5, 1962, Dr. Fidel M. Gilatco, concurred in by Dr. Jose S. Santillan, both of the same office, submitted a report on
the matter wherein an enlightening and exhaustive study of the sickness of
hernia in relation to its compensability was made, which we hereunder quote for
ready reference:

“We could not, for a moment,
believe that such straining would have caused its hernia, since it has been
shown by the following testimony of Dr. Gesmundo that
this condition has been existing for a long time.

* * * *

“If the nature of his work which
he has been doing since 1952 would really aggravate his pre-existing hernia, it
would not have waited for almost ten long years before he became bothered by
pains in the ‘puson‘ and
scrotum.

“The pre-requisites for the
compensability of hernia which our Division has been following, and which
have almost become the standard criteria in workmen’s compensation in the U.S.
and Canada, are the following:

‘1. That the hernia is of recent
origin.

2. That its appearance was
accompanied by pain, discoloration, and evidence of a tearing of the tissue.

3. That it was immediately
preceded by some strain oat of and in the course of employment

4. That a protrusion or mass
appeared in the area immediately following the alleged strain.’ (Occupational Diseases by Johnstone. W.B. Saunders Co., 1942, pp. 421-424)

“In the case of Perfecto Bonilla,
it has been shown that his hernia is of long-standing, and therefore, is not
of recent origin.

“Although he felt some pains
after the alleged-strain on Jan. 20,
1961,
there is no showing that there was discoloration and evidence of tearing of
the tissues which would have necessitated an immediate operation. As to the
alleged strain on February 5, 1961, no such discoloration or tearing of the
tissue were likewise observed, but only his scrotum loosened (lumalawit) ‘everytime I tightened
the independent chuck of the lathe I was operating,’ a condition which is
ordinary in reducible hernia of long-standing. He was finally operated for herniorrhapy, only after he has been continuously bothered
or annoyed by the constant bulging of his scrotum everytime he tightened the independent chuck of the lathe.

“Moorehead stated that in Hernia, ‘the protrusion is the
final result of previous gradual alteration of the rings, fascia, and muscles.
Its appearance may be “silent” or accompanied by mild distress. But no
unusual act or endeavor is necessary for its appearance. It may show up with
stooping, bending, or lifting at the shop but may just as likely appear while at
stool at home.” (Italics supplied)

“In view of all the foregoing, it
is our considered opinion that the hernia and the nature of the work of
Perfecto Bonilla have no causal relationship; and that the eventual hernia
operation was done not because it was aggravated as a result of the alleged
strain in the course of his employment but because of the progressive
enlargement during the long span of 10 years, of the pre-formed sac filled with
intestine or omentum which kept on exerting gradual
pressure upon the weakening abdominal rings, fascia and
muscles.”

In the foregoing report we take
note of the following statement: “It is our considered opinion that the
hernia and the nature of the work of Perfecto Bonilla have no causal
relationship; and that the eventual hernia operation was done not because it
was aggravated as a result of the alleged strain in the course of his employment
but because of the progressive enlargement during the long span of 10 years, of
the pre-formed sac filled with intestine or omentum
which kept on exerting gradual pressure upon the weakening abdominal rings,
fascia and muscles.”

There is nothing in the record to
disprove this finding which is based on a careful and serious study made by two
doctors of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission. This being a question of fact
we have no other alternative than to abide by it. The authorities cited by
claimant’s counsel do not appear to involve facts similar to those obtaining in
the present case. Hence, they are not controlling.

WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is
affirmed. No costs.

Bengzon, C.J., Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera. Paredes, Dizon, Regala, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P. and Zaldivar, JJ., concur.