JESUS D. AGUJA, PETITIONER, VS. GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.

The petitioner, as a pauper litigant seeks the review of the
Employees’ Compensation Commission (ECC)
decision dated November 10, 1987 denying his claim for additional benefits
under P.D. 626, as amended on account of his eye injury.

Jesus D. Aguja worked as a janitor in
the Office of the Municipal Treasurer in Libmanan, Camarines Sur.  While he was cleaning the office toilet
sometime in April 1979, the bottle of muriatic acid
he was using suddenly fell to the floor, causing the contents to splash all
over.  Some of the acid hit the
petitioner’s right eye which caused gradual loss of vision, finally culminating
in blindness.  The petitioner’s left eye
was not blinded, but it contracted “pterygium
nasal side with visions of 20/40″, per certification of Dr. Delfin M. Rosales, an eye, ear, nose, and throat (EENT) specialist in Naga
City causing a disturbance of vision. 
Notwithstanding his blindness on the right eye, the petitioner continued
to work but retired finally from service on February 26, 1982.

On the basis of the accident in 1979, the petitioner claimed for
compensation benefit with the GSIS.  He
was awarded temporary total disability benefits from September 5 to 29, 1979 and was thereafter granted
permanent partial disability benefit for a period of twenty five (25) months.

After receipt of the corresponding monetary benefits from the
System, the petitioner asked for additional benefits on the ground of permanent total disability under PD 626,
claiming that he was also gradually losing vision of his left eye.  This was denied by the GSIS on the ground
that he had already previously received the maximum which could be awarded
to him under the law.  Furthermore, the
condition of his left eye which allegedly had normal vision did not satisfy the
criteria for a grant of permanent total disability benefits.

The petitioner then elevated his case to the ECC which later
affirmed the decision of the GSIS on
November 10, 1988.  (The petitioner was however
notified of such decision only on January 8, 1989).

Unaware of the denial of his claim, the petitioner sought the
help of this Court praying for the additional benefits.

Consequently, in a resolution dated February 10, 1988, the Court denied the petition for being
premature but at the same time directed the ECC to act speedily on the claim
pending with it.

Later, the petitioner moved for a reconsideration of the Court’s
resolution attaching to it the decision of the ECC.

Thus, on June 15, 1988,
the Court resolved to reconsider its February
10, 1988 resolution and revived the case.  The respondents, ECC and GSIS were required
to file their comments.

On September 15, 1990,
the Court issued another resolution, the pertinent portion of which reads as
follows:

“Considering the foregoing, the Court Resolved to require
petitioner Aguja to submit satisfactory medical proof
on the condition of his left eye and whether the same is still capable of
treatment and to what extent.  Since he
is a pauper litigant who cannot even afford the services of a lawyer, he may go
to the nearest government
hospital which has a competent eye doctor, present a copy of this Court’s
resolution, and request for the necessary medical certificate.” (Rollo, p. 95)

In a later resolution dated November 26, 1990, the Court directed the Public
Attorney’s Office (PAO) to assist the petitioner in this case specifically in obtaining the required medical certificate
with respect to the condition of the petitioner’s left eye necessary for the
resolution of the claim.

The issue now before the Court is whether or not the petitioner
is entitled to the additional compensation prayed for.

Petitioner Aguja is claiming for
additional benefits because “his left eye with PTERYGIUM is slowly and
gradually losing sight.  As of now, he
can not recognize people beyond one (1) meter. 
It is possible he may also totally lose his vision.”

To be entitled to an income benefit for permanent total
disability, the following conditions must be satisfied:

“Section 1.  Condition of entitlement.  (a) An employee shall be entitled to an
income benefit for permanent total disability if all of the following conditions
are satisfied:

1)   He has been duly reported to the System;

2)   He sustains the permanent total disability as
a result of the injury or sickness; and

3)  The System has been duly notified of the
injury or sickness which caused his disability. 
(Sec. 1 (a) Rule XI, Amended Rules on Employees’ Compensation)

The public respondents denied the petitioner’s claim on the basis
of the 1985 finding that only the right eye was blind at the time while the
left eye was not.  The respondents ruled
that the petitioner is not qualified for permanent total disability benefits
but only permanent partial disability which the petitioner has already
received.

It must be stressed that the petitioner is claiming for
additional benefits because of the gradual loss of vision of his left eye which
the public respondents never considered anymore in evaluating his claim.

From the records of the case, there is sufficient basis for
granting the petition.

The medical certificate submitted to this Court with respect to
the condition of the petitioner’s left eye reveals the following results:

–   CATARACT IMMATURE O.S.

–   OCCLUSIO-PUPILLAE O.D.
WITH IRIDODIALYSIS O.D. SECONDARY CHEMICAL BURNS

–   PTERYGIUM (Rollo, p. 115)

Medical authorities disclose that:

CATARACT IMMATURE – is an opacity
of the crystalline eye lens or of its capsule.

(DORLAND, Illustrated
Medical Dictionary, 24th Edition, 1965)

– any cataract in
the beginning stages, or one which affects only a part of the lens or its
covering.

(MALOY, Medical Dictionary for Lawyers, 2nd
edition, 1951).

OCCLUSIO-PUPILLAE – is the closure of the opening in the iris of
the eye by formation of an opaque membrane.

IRIDODIALYSIS – is the separation or loosening of the iris from its
attachment.

PTERYGIUM – a triangular fleshy mass of thickened conjunctiva occuring usually at the inner side of the eyeball, covering
part of the cornea and causing a
disturbance of vision. (Dorland, Illustrated Medical Dictionary, 24th edition, 1965)

Clearly, from the above findings, the petitioner’s left eye is
indeed gradually losing vision.  The left
eye was found to be burned which only goes to show that the present condition
can be traced back to the accident which occurred in April, 1979 and no other.  There is no showing that there was any supervening
event which may have caused the blindness of the left eye.  Undeniably, the injury was caused by the
splashing of muriatic acid while the janitor was
cleaning the government building’s toilet.  This accident not only blinded the right eye but also “compromised” the left
eye.  According to the medical
certificate issued in 1985, a pterygium was already
growing on the nasal side of the left eye. 
In such a case, the injury caused on the left eye is
considered as work-connected; hence, compensable.

The fact that the aggravation occurred after the petitioner’s
retirement does not militate against his claim for additional benefits.  There is
no question that the proximate cause of the apparent but gradual loss of
vision of the left eye was the accidental fall of the bottle of muriatic acid.  The
presence of secondary chemical burns on the left eye as stated in the medical
certificate buttresses the assumption that the injury of the left eye was also
caused by the accident in 1979.  The
causal connection between the resulting disability and the petitioner’s work is
beyond cavil.  In Belarmino
v. ECC, 185 SCRA 304 [1990], we stated that:

“xxx Where the primary injury is
shown to have arisen in the course
of employment, every natural consequence that flows from the injury likewise
arises out of the employment, unless
it is the result of an independent
intervening cause attributable to claimant’s own negligence or
misconduct (I Larson Workmen’s Compensation Law 3-279 [1972]).  Simply stated, all the medical consequences
and sequels that flow from the primary injury are compensable.  (Ibid.)”

A person’s disability might not emerge at one precise moment in
time but rather over a period of time (See Jimenez v. ECC, G.R. No. 79193,
November 28, 1989, En Banc Minute Resolution).  It is possible that an injury which at
first was considered to be
temporary may later on become
permanent or one who suffers a partial disability becomes totally and
permanently disabled from the same cause as in the case at bar.  Unfortunately, the petitioner’s permanent
disability has further deteriorated affecting also the vision of his left
eye.  The aggravation of petitioner’s
condition arose from the same injury or disability.  The petitioner was compelled to retire from
work on account of the blindness of his right eye.  With the gradual loss of vision of his left
eye, it would even be more difficult, if not impossible for the petitioner to
be gainfully employed now.  As stated in
numerous cases, “total disability does not mean a state of absolute
helplessness, but disablement of an employee to earn wages in the same kind of
work or a work of similar nature, that he was trained for or accustomed to
perform, or any kind of work which a person of his mentality and attachments
could do.  (Abaya
v. ECC, 176 SCRA 507 [1989]; Orlino v. ECC, G.R. No. 85015, March 29, 1990 En Banc
Minute Resolution, Marcelino v. Seven Up Bottling Co.
47 SCRA 343 [1972]; Landicho v. WCC and Canlubang Sugar Estate, 89 SCRA 147 [1979]) To deny the
petitioner, the benefits prayed for would certainly be contrary to the liberal
and compassionate spirit of the law as embodied in Article 4 of the New Labor
Code (Lazo v. ECC, 186 SCRA 569 [1990].

We hold, therefore, that the petitioner is entitled to a
conversion of his disability benefits from permanent partial to permanent
total.  The compensation benefits shall
be determined in accordance with Section 5, of Rule XI of the Amended Rules on
Employment’s Compensation providing as follows:

“For contingencies which occurred before May 1, 1979, the limitation of P12,000 or 5 years, whichever comes first, shall be
enforced.”

Since the petitioner has already received income benefits under
permanent partial disability the public respondent shall pay only the
difference between the two.

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED.  The Employees’ Compensation Commission
decision dated November 10, 1988 is SET ASIDE and REVERSED.  The respondents are ordered to pay
compensation benefits as stated above.

SO ORDERED.

Fernan, C.J., (Chairman), Feliciano, Bidin, and Davide, Jr., JJ., concur.