G.R. No. 51533. November 29, 1983
PAZ L. MAKABALI, PETITIONER, VS. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION, GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM (MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND CULTURE), RESPONDENTS.
MAKASIAR, J.:
This is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision of the Employees’
Compensation Commission in ECC Case No. 1140, rendered on August 9, 1979
affirming the decision of the Government Service Insurance System dated June 5,
1978, which denied the claim of herein petitioner Paz L. Makabali for
disability benefits under P.D. No. 626, as amended.
Petitioner Paz L. Makabali
served as classroom teacher at the Del Pilar Central School, San
Fernando, Pampanga, since 1946 until she retired on August 21, 1975 under the
disability retirement plan (R.A. 660) at the age of sixty (pp. 8 & 10, ECC rec.).
The records disclose that
as per physician’s (Dr. Benicio Torralba) certification, petitioner’s illness
started in 1971 as headache and blurring vision (p. 17. rec.; p. 11, ECC
rec.).
On August 24, 1972,
petitioner, while teaching her class collapsed with the back of her head
hitting the floor. Purificacion P.
Bondoc and Dominador T. Bondoc, co-teachers of petitioner, who happened to be
in the adjoining classroom, heard the commotion, and immediately went to see
what was happening. Upon seeing her
lying on the floor in a semi-conscious condition with face upward and being
surrounded by her pupils, they rushed her to the Makabali Clinic (now the V.L.
Makabali Memorial Hospital) San Fernando, Pampanga, where she was examined by a
doctor and given aid. On the following
day, she reported for duty and resumed teaching, but she complained of some
pains in the back of her head and also her eyes. After the incident, she often complained of recurring headache
and painful eyes (pp. 22-23, rec.).
Thereafter, petitioner was treated for glaucoma at the Pampanga
Eye, Ear, Nose, Throat, and General Hospital in San Fernando, Pampanga, under
the professional care of Dr. Romeo Galang.
Due to this ailment,
petitioner was forced to retire on August 21, 1975 under the disability
retirement plan (R.A. 660) at the age of sixty — five years short of the
compulsory retirement age of sixty-five (p. 10, ECC rec.). Subsequent to her retirement, petitioner
herein filed on June 19, 1976, her claim for disability benefits under P.D. No.
626, as amended, with the respondent GSIS for having contracted glaucoma during
her employment as classroom teacher at the Del Pilar Central School, San Fernando,
Pampanga, from 1946 to 1975 (p. 17, rec.).
In April, 1976, she was likewise treated by Dr. Benicio Torralba
of the same ailment. In 1978, she was
also treated by Dr. Delfin Rosales of the Philippine Eye Research Institute at
the P.G.H. compound (p. 25, ECC rec.).
On June 5, 1978,
respondent GSIS denied her claim on the ground that her ailment, glaucoma, is
not an occupational disease taking into consideration the nature
of her particular work. According to
the GSIS, “glaucoma is a common disease of middle and advanced life,
occurring generally between 40 and 70 years of age. It has for its characteristic sign an increase in intraocular
pressure. Predisposing factors are
arteriosclerosis (anaging process) and hereditary characteristics as hyperopic eyes,
small eyes, small eyeballs with large lenses and those in which the cornea is
of small size” (p. 13, ECC rec.).
On June 5, 1978,
petitioner sought reconsideration of the aforesaid denial but the same was
likewise denied by the respondent GSIS in its letter-resolution dated November
21, 1978. Pertinent portions of the
said letter-resolution read as follows:
“As far as the degree of proof is concerned, the claimant
must be able to show, at least by substantial evidence, that the development of
the ailment was brought about largely by the working conditions present in the nature of employment.
“In your case, your ailment is Glaucoma. This ailment, not being listed as an
occupational disease, therefore, requires such degree of proof as mentioned
above. On the basis, however, of the
papers and evidence on record which you have submitted, it appears that you
have not established that your employment
had any direct causal relationship with the contraction of the ailment. While it is admitted that the aforesaid
ailment supervened in the course of your employment as an Elementary Grade
Teacher of Del Pilar Central School, San Fernando, Pampanga, there has not been any showing that the same
directly arose therefrom or resulted from the nature thereof.
“In view of the foregoing, this Office regrets not to be able
to favorably reconsider your claim and at the same time the entire records
of your case will be elevated to the Employees’ Compensation Commission for
review” (pp. 16 & 17, ECC rec.; underscoring supplied).
On August 9, 1979,
respondent ECC rendered a decision sustaining the denial of petitioner’s claim
for disability benefits, primarily because petitioner failed to present proofs
sufficient to show causal relationship between her ailment and occupation as
elementary classroom teacher, or to show that the risk of contracting the
ailment was increased by her working conditions. Pertinent portions of respondent ECC’s decision state the
following:
“Under the present employees’ compensation program, when an
ailment upon which a claim for compensation benefits is based is not an
occupational disease under Annex ‘A’ of the Rules implementing P.D. 626, as
amended, as in the case at bar, proofs must be adduced to show that the risk of
contracting the ailment has been increased by working conditions. The degree of proof upon which a
determination can be based must be substantive enough so as to lead an unprejudiced
mind to a reasonable conclusion that direct causal link exists between the illness and the employment. It is only submission of such positive proof
that a finding of compensability may be rendered. The record in this case however, is devoid of any showing that
sufficient proofs were presented as to sway the scale of judgment in
appellant’s favor. Even Dr. Benicio
Torralba, failed to indicate in the Attending Physician’s Certification that
the illness was directly caused by appellant’s duties and working
conditions. In the absence of such showing and on the strength of the
medically accepted medical etiology of the disease, we have no other recourse
but to uphold the finding of the
respondent System that the ‘alleged ailment is principally traceable to
factors which are definitely not work-connected”‘ (p. 23, ECC rec.).
The above-quoted decision
was based on the findings and recommendation of the respondent ECC’s medical
officer which state:
“Glaucoma is a disease characterized by increased
intraocular tension, which can cause impairment of vision ranging from slight
abnormalities to absolute blindness. It
may either be primary or secondary. The primary type may be of an acute or
chronic congestive (narrow-angle) type or a chronic
simple (wide-angle type), as in the instant
case.
“The causes of primary glaucoma are not known. Among the predisposing factors are
vasomotor and emotional instability, hyperopia and especially heredity. The increase in intraocular tension is
related to an imbalance between the production of aqueous and its escape
through the normal exit channels. Obstruction to the outflow of intraocular fluid appears to be mainly
responsible for this imbalance. In the
chronic simple type, the anterior chamber is of normal depth but an actual
obstruction of the pores of the sclerocorneal trabeculae leading to the canal
of Schlemm causes inadequate drainage.
“Chronic wide-or-open-angle (simple glaucoma) is the
most common form of glaucoma. It
is characterized by
a slow course, with progressive
loss of visual fields, followed by central loss of vision. Eventually, it is usually bilateral.
“The last stage of any form of glaucoma when unrelieved by
treatment is referred to as absolute glaucoma. The eye is blind due to progressive atrophy of the optic nerve
head. The pupil is widely dilated and
fixed, the iris atrophied, the disc deeply excavated. Pain no longer is prominent but sometimes recurs at rare intervals. After a time the eyeball may
degenerate. (The Merck Manual of
Diagnosis and Therapy, by Charles E. Lyght, 11th edition; 1966; pp. 511-513).
“RECOMMENDATION:
“The above-mentioned findings indicate that the disease has
no causal relationship with the employment and employment conditions of the
claimant as elementary school teacher. Even the attending physician certified that from her knowledge of the
disease, her occupation ‘did not cause
the disease which is something inherent in her bodily make-up, but that her
work and strain on her eyes could
have contributed significantly to aggravating
the disease.’
“The decision of the GSIS denying the instant claim should be
affirmed” (pp. 18-19, ECC rec.; broken underlining supplied).
Hence, on November 26, 1979, petitioner, assisted by counsel,
filed the instant petition.
Petitioner contends that her cause of action accrued as early as
1971 when she started having headache and blurring vision. That being the case, she further contends
that the law that governs the instant case is the Workmen’s Compensation Act,
as amended, and not P.D. No. 626, as amended, applying the doctrine laid down
in the case of CORALES vs. ECC, et al. (88 SCRA 547).
Respondent Commission, thru the Solicitor General, maintains,
however, that the law applicable to the case at bar is P.D. No. 626, as amended,
which covers injury, sickness, disability or death occuring on or after January
1, 1975 (Art. 208, Labor Code; p. 49, rec.).
Respondent GSIS, in its answer, likewise maintains that the law
applicable in this case is P.D. No. 626, as amended, on the ground that
petitioner’s cause of action could not have accrued in 1971. Respondent System argues that “her
claim is for permanent total disability and she could not be regarded as having
been permanently and totally disabled in 1971 because she continued working
thereafter. Stated differently, she
could not have been awarded any disability claim in 1971” (p. 77,
rec.). Respondent System relies on the
ruling in Legaspi vs. Province of Negros Occidental, L-43066, December 29,
1978, that the term “disability compensation” implies that the
compensation must be for loss or diminution of salary.
WE find petitioner’s claim meritorious. In line with the doctrine laid down in Corales vs. ECC, et al.
(88 SCRA 547 [1979]), and reiterated in the cases of Villones vs. ECC, et al.
(92 SCRA 320 [1979]), Delos Angeles vs. ECC, et al. (94 SCRA 308 [1979]),
Balatero vs. ECC, et al. (608 SCRA [1980]), LaO vs. ECC, et al. (97 SCRA 780 [1980]),
Calvero vs. ECC,
et al.
(117 SCRA 452 [1982]), Segismundo vs. GSIS, et al. (121 SCRA 304 [March 28,
1983]), the question of compensability of petitioner’s ailment hinges on the
approximate, if not the exact, point in time when she contracted such ailment,
which determines the law applicable in the instant case.
It is indubitable that petitioner’s ailment diagnosed as glaucoma
supervened in the course of her
employment. This was even admitted by
respondent GSIS when it denied petitioner’s request for reconsideration (p. 16,
ECC rec.). Petitioner entered the
government service in 1946, and it was only in 1971 or after a period of almost
twenty-five (25) years that her
ailment became manifest as headache and blurring vision (p. 11, ECC rec.). Apparently, it was aggravated in 1972 when
she collapsed while teaching, with the back part of her head (cerebellum)
hitting the floor, after which she complained of recurring headache and painful
eyes.
On April 10, 1976, Dr.
Benicio M. Torralba diagnosed petitioner’s ailment as:
“Absolute glaucoma, OD. [right eye]. Simple chronic glaucoma, OS. [left eye]” (p. 9, ECC rec.).
Likewise, on November 10,
1976, Dr. Romeo Galang of the Pampanga Eye, Ear, Nose, Throat and General
Hospital, examined petitioner’s eyes and made the following findings:
“Vision:
O.D. Negative.
O.S. CF 1/2 foot.
“Funduscopic
examination:
O.D. (lens is cataractous)
O.S. cupping of the disc (glaucomatous)”
[p. 12, ECC rec.].
The findings of
respondent ECC’s Medical Officer also indicated that petitioner’s ailment is
glaucoma — primary, chronic simple, wide-angle type (p. 19, ECC rec.). However, while the ECC Medical Officer
correctly diagnosed petitioner’s ailment as such, her findings (which was the
basis of the ECC decision) on
the predisposing factors of petitioner’s disease were actually those of another
type of glaucoma referred to as the chronic congestive, narrow-angle type. The findings of the ECC Medical
Officer state that “among the predisposing factors are vasomotor and emotional instability, hyperopia
and especially heredity”
(ibid).
Medical authorities state:
“Two well-defined types of primary glaucoma exist which
differ from each other in the type of patient affected, their clinical
course and symptomatology, and in their prognosis and treatment — closed-angle
and simple glaucoma. As a general
rule, the first type is characterized by sudden episodic subacute attacks of
raised tension, the most notable features of which are a diminution of
vision and the subjective
appearance of halos caused by corneal oedema. From the less severe of these attacks the eye may seem to recover to a considerable extent, but subsequent
episodes tend to involve a permanent raising of the tension (chronic congestive
glaucoma) which may result in blindness (absolute glaucoma) or an acute attack
may abolish vision. The second type, on
the other hand, develops slowly, quietly and insidiously over many years
with a characteristic triad of symptoms — raised tension, typical field
defects and cupping of the disc — until in the ‘absolute’ stage the eye become
intensely hard, all vision is lost and the disc develops a deep atrophic cup.
xx xx xx
“Closed-angle Glaucoma. This form of glaucoma occurs typically in persons, usually
women, in the fifth or sixth decade; it may, however, occur earlier or later. It is seen particularly in those who are highly strung and anxious in disposition and usually show an instability in their
vasomotor reactions.
“The type of eye affected is characteristic. It is usually hypermetropic, the anterior
chamber is hallow with the lensiris diaphragm far forward and its angle
narrow; the last feature is a constant characteristic. The narrowness of the angle may be due to
the smallness of many of these eyes, the configuration of the ciliary body, and
often to the relative size of the lens
in comparison with the smallness of the eye so that this tissue crowds the root
of the iris against the cornea,
narrowing the filtration passages. Narrowness of the angle is often a hereditary characteristic but does
not become apparent until the fourth or fifth decade, a development typical of
advancing years associated to some extent with the growth of the lens.
xxx xxx xxx
“Simple Glaucoma presents an entirely different
clinical picture from the acute form. While
the latter occurs preferentially in women in the fifth and sixth decades, of an
excitable habit and with unstable vasomotor system, simple glaucoma occurs in
either sex a decade later,
affecting people who are of no specific psychological pattern but who are generally the subject of
sclerosis. While closed angle glaucoma
is characterized by premonitory symptoms and a turbulent course, simple glaucoma
is quietly and practically
symptomless. The first type always
occurs in a specific type
of eye with a narrow angle of the anterior chamber. The second occurs with any type of angle;
this, as is found in the
population generally, is therefore usually wide. In the first type, field-defects and cupping of the disc appear
late and develop rapidly; in the second, early and insidiously. Both forms of the disease, however, lead
to the same end — a stage of permanent congestion, absolute glaucoma and
blindness. In both types the
condition is almost always eventually bilateral.
”The clinical course simple
glaucoma is characteristic. No
symptoms are generally experienced although mild headache and eye-aches may
occur. An observant person may
notice a defect in the visual field; while
reading and close work often present increasing difficulties due to
accomodative failure owing to pressure upon the ciliary muscle and its nerve
supply. An increase in the strength of
presbyopic glasses is therefore often required. On the whole, however, the disease is so insidious that it is often not noticed until the vision of
one eye is almost lost and that of the other seriously impaired, when it may be
discovered only by accident” (PARSONS’ Diseases of the Eye, Sir
Steward Duke-Elder, 15th ed, 1969, pp. 289, 290, 298-299).
Significantly, petitioner
experienced headache and blurring vision in 1971. On August 24, 1972, after she collapsed with the back of her head
hitting the floor, she often complained of recurring headache and painful eyes. In 1976, when she was examined by Dr. Benicio Torralba and Dr. Romeo Galang she already
lost one eye due to absolute glaucoma (last stage of primary glaucoma), and
another eye seriously impaired due to primary simple chronic glaucoma.
It is also
important to note that in the instant case, the petitioner had served the
government as an elementary school teacher for almost 29 years prior to her
disability retirement. She spent more
than half of her teaching services in the barrio of San Rafael, Mexico Pampanga,
which according to the certification of its Barrio Captain, Julian Quillar,
executed on May 25, 1979, is still without electricity (p. 4, ECC rec.).
We are well aware of the fact that only a handful of public
elementary school teachers are fortunate enough to be assigned in urban areas
where the working conditions are comparatively much better than those in the
rural areas. A large majority of public elementary school
teachers, as in the case of the petitioner, work in remote places such as
sitios and barrios under poor working conditions. Thus, the daily task of conducting classes (normally composed of
40 to 50 pupils in urban areas and up to 70 pupils in rural areas) in an
atmosphere that is, by any standard, not conducive to learning becomes even
more physically taxing to the teachers. Tremendous amount of paper work during and after office hours (from
correcting examination papers, assignments, school projects and reports to
writing lesson plans and the computation and recording of grades) can be very
physically draining especially to the senior members of the teaching profession
such as the petitioner. Such and other
related school activities of a teacher, aggravated by substandard, if not
adverse, working conditions, give rise to increased tension, if not emotional
and psychological disturbance on the part of the teachers. This is especially true in the case of
public elementary school teachers whose pupils, being of tender age and
immature, need to be disciplined and to be taught good manners and right
conduct, as well as to be assisted in their formal school lessons.
Medical experts report
that “glaucoma is a symptomatic condition, not a disease sui generis. The characteristic physical sign is increased
in intra-ocular pressure. xx xx Thus a
rise in blood pressure in the capillaries usually associated with states of
congestion causes a raised ocular tension owing to the increased volume of the
dilated vessels and the increased transudation of fluid into the chambers of
the eye” (PARSONS’ Diseases of the Eye, S.S. Duke-Elder, 15th ed., 1969,
p. 285).
According to the
certification issued by Dr. Delfin Rosales, petitioner’s attending physician
in the Philippine Eye Research Institute at the Philippine General Hospital,
“x x her work and the strain on her eyes could have contributed
significantly to aggravating the glaucoma she is suffering right now” (p.
14, ECC rec.).
WE must not also neglect to mention the fact that public
elementary school teachers are the lowest paid government workers, considering
the nature and importance of the services they render. They are the most reliable and dedicated
public servants being constantly called upon by officials of the local and national government to assist in
various extra-curricular and civic activities which contribute to the welfare
of the community and the country. Their
responsibility in molding the values and character of the young generations of
the country, cannot be overestimated.
“Significantly, even
Republic Act No. 4670, otherwise known as the Magna Charta for Public School
Teachers, mandates in one of its provisions that ‘teachers shall be protected
against the consequences of employment injury in accordance with existing
laws. The effects of the physical and
nervous strain on the teacher’s health shall be recognized as compensable
occupational diseases in accordance with existing laws‘” (Calvero vs. ECC,
et al., 117 SCRA 462 [1982]).
It is therefore patent
that petitioner’s ailment had its onset earlier than when she started to have
headache and blurring vision — after serving for about twenty-five (25) years
as a public school teacher. According
to the above-quoted medical authorities, “the disease is so insidious that
it is often not noticed until the vision
of one eye is almost lost
and that of the other seriously
impaired, when it may be discovered by accident” (Ibid., pp. 298-
299). It was the incident on August 24,
1972, wherein she accidentally banged the rear portion of her head (cerebellum)
on the floor that led to the discovery of her ailment — long before the
effectivity of the New Labor Code.
Consequently, the law that governs the instant case is the
Workmen’s Compensation Act, as amended, and not P.D. No. 626, as amended. Thus, this Court ruled:
“Petitioner’s claim having accrued prior to the New Labor
Code, the presumption of compensability, the principle of aggravation, the
award of attorney’s fees and the payment of administrative fees must be
observed and applied. And the
Employees’ Compensation Commission as the successor of the defunct Workmen’s
Compensation Commission is duty bound to observe and apply the foregoing
principles in passing upon worker’s compensation. xx x” (Corales vs. ECC, et al., 88 SCRA 554 [1979]; LaO vs.
ECC, et al., 97 SCRA 780 [1980]; Panangui, et al. vs. ECC, et al., G.R. No.
56259 [March 18, 1983]).
Under Section 44 of the
Workmen’s Compensation Act, a presumption of compensability is established,
although rebuttable by substantial evidence to the contrary. And this Court ruled in Segismundo vs. GSIS,
et al. (G.R. No. 50941 [March 28, 1983]), that, “(T)he presumption of
compensability places upon the employer the burden of establishing the contrary
by substantial evidence. As there was
no evidence presented by the employer to rebut the presumption, there can
therefore be no occasion for respondent Commission to absolve the deceased’s
employer. The presumption of
compensability becomes conclusive (Pantoja vs. Republic, 87 SCRA 443; Cañonero
vs. WCC, 81 SCRA 712; Lorenza vs. WCC,
81 SCRA 434; Santros vs. WCC, 75 SCRA 365).”
And, “the cause of the
ailment is immaterial; what is important is that it occurred or was
aggravated in the course of employment” (Evangelista vs. ECC, et al., 111
SCRA 66 [1982]). “It then becomes unquestionable that once the illness supervened at the
time of the employment, there is a rebuttable presumption that such illness
arose out of the employment or was at least aggravated by such employment”
(Panangui, et al. vs. ECC, et al., G.R.
No. 56259 [March 18, 1983]).
Furthermore, in the case
of LaO vs. ECC, et al. (97 SCRA 780, 791 [1980]), this Court ruled that
“x x x where the cause of the illness of the claimant or of the death of the deceased is not definitely
determinable, the medical report of findings presented by respondent employer
(the ECC or GSIS) does not or
cannot constitute substantial evidence to prevail over the presumption of
compensability and aggravation and thus defeat the compensability of the
claim.”
Moreover, in Calvero vs.
ECC, et al. (117 SCRA 461 [1982]), this Court ruled that the presumption of
compensability established by law, could not be overcome by the opinion of the
ECC Medical Officer that there was no causal connection between the ailment and
claimant’s employment nor was the risk of contracting it increased by the
working conditions.
Respondents ECC and GSIS,
however, maintain that the presumption of compensability and the doctrine of
aggravation are not applicable in the instant case. Respondent System argues that petitioner could not have been
awarded any disability claim in 1971 because she continued working thereafter. This argument raised the issue of whether or
not the term “disability compensation” implies that the compensation
must be for loss or diminution
of salary. However, this question has
been resolved in Corales vs. ECC, et al. (88 SCRA 555, 556 & 557 [1979]), and related cases, thus:
“xx x We have recognized the fact that an employee medically
pronounced disabled for work can, despite thereof, pursue his work by sheer
determination and ingenuity.
“In the subsequent
cases of Romero vs. WCC, et al.
(77 SCRA 480, June 30, 1977) and Gonzales vs.
WCC, et al. (81 SCRA 709-710),
We enunciated that:
“‘Disability, as a basis for compensation, is the combination
of partial or total physical
incapacity and of inability to work, or inability to work with the same case and
competency as before the injury, or the loss, total or partial, of earning
power from the injury (Corpus Juris, Section 535, p. 813).
“‘Disability is used
either in the medical or physical sense, as evidenced by obvious loss of
members or by medical testimony that the claimant simply cannot make the
necessary muscular movements and exertions; it is used to mean de facto
inability to earn wages, as evidenced by proof that claimant has not in fact
earned anything.
“‘This medical and wage?loss aspects of disability may
be more clearly illustrated as follows: A claimant
may be, in a medical sense, utterly shattered and ruined, but may be
sheer determination and ingenuity contrive to make a living for himself; conversely, a claimant may be able to
work, in both his and doctor’s opinion, but awareness of his injury may lead employers to refuse him
employment.
“‘The problem of the administrators of the Act is the proper
balancing of these medical and wage-loss factors. An absolute insistence on medical disability in the abstract
would produce a denial of compensation in the
latter case, although the wage-loss is a real and as directly traceable
to the injury as in any other instance. At the other extreme, an
insistence on the wage-loss as the best would deprive the claimant in the
former illustration of an award, thus not only penalizing his laudable efforts
to make the best of his misfortune but also fostering the absurdity of
pronouncing man non-disabled in spite of the unanimous contrary evidence of
medical experts and of
common observation (Larson, Vol. II, p. 3).'”
Furthermore, in the same
case, this Court said:
“A look at Section 13 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, as
amended, reveals that it does not require that illness or disability should
result in wage-loss to entitle one to an award of medical expenses or
benefits. That section clearly states
that ‘immediately after an employee has suffered an injury or contracted
sickness and during the subsequent period of disability, the employer or
insurance carrier shall provide the employee with such services, appliances and
supplies as the nature of his disability and the process of his recovery may
require; and that which will promote his early restoration to the maximum level of his physical capacity
x x x.'”
Moreover, “with the
approval of her optional retirement, the question as to petitioner’s disability
is thus foreclosed. Under Memorandum
Circular No. 133 of October 19, 1967 issued by the Office of the President,
optional retirement may be allowed before reaching the compulsory age of
retirement only upon proof that the employee is already physically incapacitated to render sound and efficient service [Meñez
vs. ECC, et al., 97 SCRA 87, 97 (1980); Delos Angeles vs. ECC, et al., 94 SCRA
308, 312 (1979); Faicol vs. WCC, et al., 93 SCRA 811, 818 (1979); Cañonero vs.
WCC, 81 SCRA 712, 720 (1978); Romero vs. WCC, 77 SCRA 482, 490 (1977)]”
(Calvero vs. ECC, et al., supra, pp. 459-460). But, as pointed
out by petitioner’s counsel, like the real teacher that she is, petitioner went
on working through sheer determination despite the fact that her vision was
rapidly deteriorating. She should not
therefore be deprived of her compensation but on the contrary she should be
rewarded for her unstinted devotion to her duties as a teacher (p. 97, rec.).
Finally, this Court, in
the case of Panangui vs. ECC, et al. (121 SCRA 69 [March 18, 1983]),
emphatically ruled that “(A)s We have
consistently and even persistently stated before in numerous cases, We have
always viewed and treated compensation claims on a much broader perspective
and have always resolved such claims on the basis of the fundamental and
well-entrenched constitutional precepts of social justice and protection to
labor.”
WHEREFORE, THE DECISION
OF THE EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION IS HEREBY SET ASIDE AND THE MINISTRY
OF EDUCATION AND CULTURE IS HEREBY
ORDERED
1. TO PAY PETITIONER THE SUM OF TWELVE THOUSAND (P12,000.00) PESOS AS
DISABILITY COMPENSATION BENEFITS;
2. TO REIMBURSE
PETITIONER HER MEDICAL AND HOSPITAL EXPENSES DULY SUPPORTED BY PROPER RECEIPTS;
3. TO FURNISH PETITIONER REHABILITATION SERVICES INCLUDING MEDICAL SURGICAL OR HOSPITAL
TREATMENT AS WELL AS APPLIANCES TO HELP RESTORE HER EYESIGHT AND
BECOME PHYSICALLY INDEPENDENT;
4. TO PAY PETITIONER
ATTORNEY’S FEES EQUIVALENT TO 10% OF THE AMOUNT OF THE AWARD; AND
5. TO PAY
ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS.
SO ORDERED.
Concepcion, Jr., Guerrero, Abad Santos, De Castro, and Escolin, JJ., concur.
Aquino, J., no part.