MAURO G. MERIS, PETITIONER, VS. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COM­MISSION AND GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM, RESPONDENTS.

The petitioner served in the Government as Deputy, and Branch
Clerk of Court from 1958 until his retirement in 1979 at the age of
sixty-three. He was paid by the
Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) retirement gratuity in the amount of
P33,231.89 and assured of a monthly pension of P645.64 for life.^[1]
Furthermore, on account of an ailment diagnosed as hypertensive cardio-vascular
disease with myocardial infarction, the GSIS awarded him temporary total
disability benefits from December 13 to 15, 1978 amounting to P60.00, and
permanent partial disability benefits from July, 1979 to January, 1980 in the
amount of P4,199.34.^[2]

What petitioner seeks in
the appellate proceedings on certiorari
at bar^[3]
is the reversal of the decision of the Employees’ Compensation Commission,^[4]
affirming that of the Government Service Insurance System which denied his plea
(1) for conversion of his disability from permanent partial to permanent total
and for a corresponding adjustment of his benefits and for (2) additional compensation
for cataract.

The record shows that both the GSIS and the respondent Commission
considered the evidence submitted by petitioner in substantiation of his claims
including that given by his attending physician, in relation to other proofs
and information obtainable from known medical authorities on the subjects. On the basis of their study and analyses of said
evidence, both public respondents came to the conclusion (a) that petitioner’s
disability was indeed permanent partial, not permanent total, and (b) that his
eye ailment, characterized as senile cataract, was not compensable, old age being
the predisposing factor therefor and said affliction not being attributable to
any excessive strain on his eyes resulting from the nature of his work. These conclusions are factual; hence, by
familiar rule, they are not reviewable by this Court. In any event, the Court has not been cited to any other evidence
or argument of any cogency to warrant a reversal of the contested decisions.

WHEREFORE, the petition for review on certiorari is
DENIED, and the Decision of the respondent Commission is AFFIRMED. No pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED.

Cruz, Gancayco, Griño-Aquino,
and Medialdea, JJ., concur.

^[1]
Rollo, p. 29

^[2]
Id., pp. 13-A, 85

^[3]
Perfected on April 20, 1982 in accordance with Article 180 of the Labor Code as
amended, in relation to Rule 43 of the Rules of Court

^[4]
Rendered on February 4, 1982 (Rollo,
pp. 25-29