CONSORCIA F. MANUZON, PETITIONER, VS. EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION COMMISSION AND GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM (MINDANAO STATE UNIVERSITY MSU, MARAWI CITY), RESPONDENTS.

Both parties argue that
the only issue in this case is whether or not an employee who has been declared
or acknowledged by the Government Service insurance System (GSIS) as
permanently and totally disabled, who was forced to retire from the service and
who died four and a half (4-1/2) years later, this time of a different but
related ailment, is entitled to death benefits under Article 194(b) of
Presidential Decree No. 626, as amended.

In a letter dated March
20, 1988, petitioner
requested the GSIS for a continued pension considering that her husband died of
a lingering illness which was found to be work connected by the GSIS and that
her husband became paralyzed while in service. 
Her husband was granted monthly pension, but it stopped in 1985.  She was granted additional pension up to
January of 1988 only.^[1]

The GSIS denied
petitioner’s request in the letter dated June 10, 1988, as follows:

“Madam:

This has further reference to your
request for continuance of your monthly pension under Presidential Decree No.
626, as amended, which ended on January
21, 1988.

In this connection, please be informed
that no additional benefit could be paid to you in view of the fact that your
husband’s death due to Myocardial Infraction was evaluated not compensable
having occurred 4-1/2 years after his retirement from the service.  What was paid to you up to January 21, 1988, seven months after
his death on June 17, 1987
is the balance of the five years guaranteed period (January 21, 1983 to January
21, 1988).

Please be guided accordingly.

Very truly yours,

 SGD.
FELICISIMO M. FERNANDEZ

Manager”^[2]

The case was appealed
(ECC Case No. 4630) to the Employees’ Compensation Commission.  In a decision dated April
12, 1989, approved
unanimously in a meeting held on April 12, 1989 under Resolution No. 89-04-0130 and
certified correct by Executive Director Jorge B. Contreras,^[3] the Commission affirmed the decision of the
GSIS and dismissed the case.

The antecedents of the
case alleged by petitioner and not disputed by public respondents are as
follows:

“Petitioner’s late husband started his government service as a
national language researcher in December 1957 at the Institute
of National Language.  Later he transferred to the Mindanao
State University
in Marawi City
as an instructor in June 1974.  He rose
to become assistant professor and he was holding this position when in October
1982 disaster struck.  He was
hospitalized at the Mindanao Sanitarium and Hospital for hemiparesis
(R).  His attending physician, Dr. Levi
H. Pagunzan described the patient’s complaint, thus:

Chief
Complaints – Hemiparesis (R)

–     The
present condition started a few hours prior to admission when he was found just lying in bed in his room, unable
to move his (R) side, urinary incontinence and spasm of (R) upper and lower
extremities.  No medication was given and
admission was rough.

The diagnosis of the doctor was
cardio-vascular accident – hemorrhage. 
Subsequently, Mr. Manuzon underwent
rehabilitation at the National Orthopedic
Hospital.  His physician Dr. Sylvia Velasco diagnosed
his illness as ‘Hemiparesis (L) Post CVA thrombosis.’

Because of his illness, Mr. Manuzon
retired from the service effective January
22, 1983.  For his ailment, hemiparesis, post cardio vascular attack, the System
recommended Mr. Manuzon for temporary total
disability benefit from January 22,
1983, up to February 24,
1983 and permanent total disability benefit from Feb. 25,
1983 up to December 1983. 
Subsequently, the System recommended that his PTD benefits be continued
to January 198(4).  This was subsequently
extended to January 1985.  On June 17, 1987, Mr. Manuzon died of acute myocardial infraction.

Mrs. Manuzon, herein petitioner filed an
Income benefits Claim for Payment in behalf of herself and her 4 minor children
for the death of her husband.  The System
on July 3, 1987 recommended payment of additional
permanent total disability benefits from February 1985 up to the end of the
guaranteed period.  However, the death
claim was disapproved by the System on the ground that the contingency occurred
after retirement when there is no longer an employer-employee relationship.

On appeal with the Employees
Compensation Commission, respondent ECC affirmed the adverse decision of the
GSIS for the following reasons:

‘xxx For a cardio vascular attack or myocardial infraction, to be
compensable under the Employees Compensation rules, any of the following conditions must be satisfied:

1.     
If the heart disease was known to have been
present during employment, there must be proof that an acute exacerbation was
clearly precipitated by the unusual strain by reason of the nature of his work.

2.     
The strain of work that brings about an acute
attack must be of sufficient severity and must be followed within twenty-four
hours by the clinical signs of a cardial injury to
constitute causal relationship.

3.     
If a person who was apparently asymptomatic
before subjecting himself to strain at work showed signs and symptoms of
cardiac injury during the
performance of his work and such symptoms and
signs persisted, it is reasonable to claim a causal relationship.

None of these
conditions had been satisfied in the instant case, obviously because the
(death) occurred more than four years after his retirement from the
service.  Further, the myocardial
infraction which caused his death, is a different illness and cannot be
considered a complication of the cardio vascular attack for which the deceased
had been properly and fully compensated with Permanent Total Disability up to
the guaranteed period.’”^[4]

Petitioner now claims that
a proper interpretation of Article 194(b) of Presidential Decree No. 626 will
entitle her dead husband to death benefits in favor of primary beneficiaries.

The petition is
meritorious.

Article 194(b) of
Presidential Decree No. 626, as amended, provides:

“b.     Under such regulations
as the Commission may approve, the System shall
pay to the primary beneficiaries upon the death of a covered employee who is
under permanent total disability under this title, eighty percent of the
monthly income benefit and his dependents to the dependents’ pension: Provided, that the marriage must have been validly subsisting at the time
of disability:  xxx Provided, finally,
that the minimum death benefit shall not be less than fifteen thousand pesos.”

We agree with the interpretation
of the Solicitor General that generally speaking, the term “covered employee”
refers to an employee who at the time of his death is still an employee covered
by the GSIS.^[5]

At the same time, we
cannot ignore the Implementing Rules and Regulations of the Employees
Compensation Commission that to be entitled to death benefits, the employee
need not be an actual employee of the public or private sector at the time of
his death; he can be a retired employee whose retirement was brought about by
permanent disability.

The rules are as follows:

“Sec. 3(a), Rule XIII.  ‘xxx
If the employee has been receiving income benefits for permanent total
disability at the time of his death, the primary beneficiaries shall be paid
the monthly income benefit equivalent to eighty percent plus the dependent’s
pension equivalent to 10 per cent thereof for every dependent child but not
exceeding five counted from the youngest and without substitution.’”

“Sec. 3(b), Rule XIII. ‘xxx If
the employee has been receiving monthly income benefit for permanent total
disability at the time of death, the secondary beneficiaries shall be paid the
monthly pension excluding the dependent’s pension of the remaining balance of
the five year guaranteed period.’”

We agree that a permanent
and totally disabled employee who
is receiving pension cannot
work.  He was compelled to retire from
the service because of disability that was work-oriented.  Permanent total disability means an
incapacity to perform gainful work which is expected to be permanent.  The covered employee referred to in Section
194(b) Presidential Decree No. 626, as amended, includes an employee who has
retired from work because of permanent and total disability and who
subsequently dies.

Article 194(b) applies to a retired person as contemplated in Art. 194(d) which allows for
funeral benefits upon the death of a covered employee or permanently totally
disabled pensioner.

We interpret this social legislation in favor of the
employee.  Any doubt as to its proper
interpretation must be resolved in favor
of the employee whose rights must be protected.

In this case, the Employees Compensation Commission denied
petitioner’s claim because the cause of death, myocardial infraction, came four
and one half years after his retirement caused by work oriented paralysis
arising from cerebrovascular attack.  The reasoning of both public respondents is
that his death was not caused by a work oriented cause.

We believe otherwise.  The
evidence clearly shows that during his employment, the deceased suffered from a
stroke, a cardio vascular accident.  It
was caused by “thrombosis,” or blockage of arteries.  He had to retire because of paralysis caused
by that cardio vascular attack when he was an assistant professor.  He died after his compulsory retirement due
to total disability, caused by cardio vascular
attack or myocardial infraction.  Stated
otherwise, the cause of his compulsory retirement due to paralysis arising from
cardio vascular accident is closely related to the cause of his death, which was
also a cardio vascular attack or myocardial infraction.  That heart disease developed when he was
still working as a professor.  It caused
his paralysis and his total permanent disability.  The disease was work-oriented because of the
nature of his employment as a professor. 
The same disease eventually caused his death, contrary to the conclusion
of both the GSIS and the Employees Compensation Commission.  The Court holds that the heirs of Mr. Manuzon are entitled to the benefits they are claiming.

This Court is aware that death benefits must be granted to the
primary beneficiaries of the decedent to
help the family of a permanent and totally disabled person who was so
disabled because of causes that are work-oriented.  The rule applies all the more when that
disabled person later dies because of the same cause or related cause.

WHEREFORE, the decisions of the Government Service
Insurance System and the Employees Compensation Commission in E.C.C. Case No.
4630 are REVERSED, and a new one is rendered declaring and directing that death
benefits be granted to petitioner, including dependent’s pension for children
who were minors at the time of their father’s death in 1987, until they reach
the age of 21 pursuant to Article 194(b) of Presidential Decree No. 626, as
amended, funeral benefits in the amount of P3,000.00 pursuant to Article
194(cc) of the same law, and all other benefits to which petitioner and her
children are entitled under the said decree.

This decision is
immediately executory.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, (Chairman), Cruz, and Medialdea, JJ., concur.

Griño-Aquino, J., on leave.

^[1]
Page 49, Rollo.

^[2]
Page 53, Rollo.

^[3]
Pages 60-62, Rollo.

^[4]
Pages 86-87, Rollo.

^[5]
Section 4(b), Presidential Decree No.
626, as amended.