TRINIDAD M. VILLAS, PETITIONER, VS. EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION COMMISSION AND GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM, (WESTERN POLICE DISTRICT INTEGRATED NATIONAL POLICE), RESPONDENTS.

This case turns on the correct determination of the date when the
petitioner contracted the permanent total disability for which he is claiming
the corresponding compensation.

The petitioner was appointed to the Manila Police Department in
1967 after passing the basic police training course and the usual
physical/medical examinations, including the neuro-psychiatric test.

In 1970, as a member of the Anti-Riot Group of the MPD, he was
knocked unconscious with a fist-sized rock that hit him on the head during a
violent student demonstration at Mendiola. As a result, he started having severe headaches, extreme heaviness,
blurring of vision, and fainting spells.^[1]

On November 8, 1972, he consulted a neurologist at the University
of Santo Tomas Hospital, who diagnosed his ailment as a generalized motor seizure with etiology undetermined.^[2]
Two years later, the petitioner was admitted to the hospital to undergo three
radical ear operations.^[3]

In July 1978, he
was treated at the San Roque Hospital in Olongapo City for injuries he had
sustained during an epileptic fit^[4] and
at the Mabini Medical Clinic from March 1979 to September 1980 for seizure
disorder.^[5]

Finally, on January 24, 1981, he was admitted to the PCM/MPF Hospital, Camp Panopio, where
he remained until March 17, 1981. He
was discharged on that date with the recommendation that he be retired under
disability.^[6]

The petitioner retired on October 23, 1981.

On August 16, 1984, he filed a claim for compensation benefits
under PD 626 as amended, but the Government Service Insurance System rejected
it on the ground that it should have been filed within one year from the date of the occurrence of the sickness on
April 26, 1977. The petitioner
requested reconsideration arguing that the prescriptive period under the Civil
Code was ten years, but the request was denied.

Nevertheless, upon his
manifestation of his intention to appeal to the Employees Compensation
Commission, the petitioner received from the GSIS the amount of P13,920.00
itemized as follows:

For payment of daily income benefit as provided for under PD 626, as amended, due to temporary
disability for 120 days P26/d from April 26 – August 23, 1977 —————- P1,920.00

and for payment of monthly income benefit
due to permanent total disability from:

Aug. 24 – 31, 1977 P252.88 ————-    65.25

Sept. 27 – April 78
————————-    2,023,04

May 78 – Dec. 79 P368.41 ————–    8,601.84

Jan.
80 – March 80 P373.99 ————    1,121.97

April 80 (prop)                              ——————–

P13,920.00

The petitioner
subsequently filed requests for payment for disability benefits but these were
denied by the GSIS, which held that he had already “enjoyed the maximum
benefit allowed by law in the amount of P12,000.00.”^[7]

On appeal, this denial
was affirmed by the Employees Compensation Commission in its decision dated
March 29, 1988.^[8] The petitioner then came to this Court for
relief.

In denying the
petitioner’s claim, the respondents relied on Article 190 of PD 626 before it
was amended by PD 1386 on May 1, 1978. The original provision read as follows:

Permanent Total Disability. – (a) Under such regulations as the Commission may approve, any employee under this Title who
contracts sickness or sustains an injury resulting in permanent total
disability shall for each month until his death but not exceeding five years be
paid by the system during such disability an income benefit to be computed as follows:

Forty-five percent of the first three hundred pesos of average
monthly salary credit or fraction thereof; plus

Twenty-five per cent of the next three hundred pesos of average
monthly salary credit or fraction thereof; plus

Nine per cent of each succeeding one hundred pesos of average
monthly salary credit or fraction thereof; plus

One tenth of one per cent of the average monthly salary credit for
each month of paid coverage in the System in excess of one hundred twenty
months of paid coverage as of
the last day of the second quarter preceding the quarter of disability: Provided, That the monthly income benefit
shall not be less than forty-five pesos.

(b) The monthly income benefit shall be
guaranteed for five years, but the total payments of which shall in no case
exceed twelve thousand pesos, and shall be suspended if the employee is
gainfully employed or recovers from his permanent total disability or fails to
present himself for examination at least once a year upon notice by the
System. (Emphasis supplied.)

They also applied Section 5, Rule XI, of the Amended Rules on
Employees Compensation, reading as follows:

Entitlement to the new income benefit under P.D. 1641. a) The
new amount of the monthly income benefit computed under these Amended rules
shall be applicable to all contingencies occurring on or after January 1,
1980. However, for contingencies which occurred before May 1, 1978, the
limitation of P12,000.00 or 5 years, whichever comes first, shall be enforced. (Emphasis
supplied.)

The Commission concluded that “inasmuch as appellant’s
contingency occurred before 1978, he (was) covered by the P12,000.00
limitation.”^[9]

The petitioner contends that the “contingency” occurred
not in 1977 but only in 1981, when the physicians at the Camp Panopio Hospital
found after thorough examination that he was suffering from “organic brain
syndrome with convulsive seizure and total deafness (L) ear” and
recommended his retirement under such disability.

At that time, the applicable law was the same Article 190 of PD
626 but as already
amended by PD 1368 to read as follows:

Art. 192. Permanent
total disability. – (a) Under such regulations as the Commission may approve, any
employee under this Title, who contracts sickness or sustains an injury
resulting in his permanent total disability shall, for each month until his death, be paid by the System during such a disability, an amount equivalent to the monthly income benefit, plus ten
percent thereof for each dependent child, but not exceeding five, beginning
with the youngest and without substitution; Provided, that the monthly income
benefit shall be the new amount of the monthly benefit for all covered
pensioners, effective upon approval of this Decree (Emphasis supplied).

(b) The monthly
income benefit shall be guaranteed for five years, and shall be suspended if
the employee is gainfully employed or recovers from his permanent total
disability, or fails to present himself for examination at least once a year upon
notice by the System.

Notably, the P12,000.00 limitation does not appear in the law as
amended. Hence, according to the
petitioner, he should be paid the prescribed monthly income benefits up to his
death even if these should go beyond the original (but withdrawn)
limitation. These benefits should be
computed under PD 1641, which took effect on January 1, 1980.

We
agree with the petitioner.

At the time he was felled by a rock during the demonstration at
Mendiola in 1970, the extent of the injuries he had sustained could not as yet
be ascertained. The consequences
thereof developed over a number of years, necessitating three ear operations
and his confinement in four separate hospitals during the period from 1974 to
1981. It was only in 1981, after his
hospitalization at Camp Panopio, that the government physicians pronounced his
permanent total disability and recommended his retirement. His claim for compensation should therefore
be resolved under the laws existing at that time.

In Chavez v. Employees Compensation Commission,^[10] this Court held:

Respondents argue that petitioner’s action has already prescribed
as it was filed beyond the 3-year prescriptive period provided for under Art.
292 of the New Labor Code. A perusal of
the record shows that petitioner filed this case on January 4, 1982 for
disability benefits. Petitioner was
afflicted with the disease in 1972 or 1974, yet he continued to go on with his
regular work as
postmaster. In 1976, when he was
operated on for removal of kidney stones, he was just on sick leave with pay. Immediately after his discharge from the
hospital, he continued to work as postmaster. He was thus not disabled yet to discharge his work. His incapacity to work began when his doctors
advised him to quit working to be able to live longer, and this was in January 1981 when he
filed his forced retirement papers at the age of 61 years. The determining point of the accrual of the
cause of action is the time the complainant-employee becomes disabled or
incapacitated to do his regular work because that is the time when the
benevolent mantle of the law commences to cover and protect him. Thus when petitioner filed his complaint on
January 4, 1982, the 3-year
prescriptive period had not yet lapsed.

The petitioner in the case before us should be deemed disabled as of the
time he was pronounced s such after his two-month examination and treatment at
the MPF Hospital in Camp Panopio. That
was in March 17, 1981. The petitioner
soon thereafter filed his claim for disability benefits with the Western Police
District, pursuing it assiduously to the National Police Commission, to the
GSIS on August 16, 1984, and finally to the ECC on March 5, 1987, before coming
to this Court. Hence, there should be
no question that his claim was filed within the three-year prescriptive period
now fixed by Section 291 of the Labor Code.

It is not disputed that the petitioner incurred his disability in
line of duty and that before the accident in 1970 he had comported himself
quite creditably, earning several awards and citations for outstanding
performance.^[11]
If there be any doubt about the interpretation of the applicable law, it would
seem that the better policy is to resolve that doubt in his favor, considering especially
the unhappy circumstances in which he now finds himself. The added expense to be incurred in
providing for his care should not deter the government from expressing its
appreciation and concern for this disabled public servant who needs and deserves
its assistance. It is a small
price to pay for dedicated and loyal service, and it is not even a reward.

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED and the challenged
decision REVERSED. The petitioner shall
be paid permanent total disability income benefits commencing from the date of
his retirement on October 23,
1981, and for the rest of his life, in accordance with PD 626 as amended
by PD 1368 and PD 1641. It is so
ordered.

Narvasa, (Chairman), Griño-Aquino, and Medialdea, JJ., concur.

Gancayco, J., on leave.

^[1]
Rollo, p. 41.

^[2]
Ibid., p. 34.

^[3]
Id., p. 32.

^[4]
id., p. 35.

^[5]
id., p. 41.

^[6]
id., p. 38.

^[7]
id., pp. 53 and 56.

^[8]
id., p. 59.

^[9]
id., p. 62.

^[10]
149 SCRA 82.

^[11]
Rollo, p. 32.