CANDIDO A. DALUPE, PETITIONER, VS. EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION COMMISSION/GOVERNMENT SERVICEE INSURANCE SYSTEM, RESPONDENTS.

The petitioner was appointed patrolman in the Manila Police
Department on June 1, 1948.  He was in the service until January 1, 1980, when he reached the compulsory
retirement age.

During his incumbency,
he contracted malignant hypertension, hypertensive cardio-vascular disease with
premature venticular and atrial
contraction, and cystitis.

On September 25, 1985,
he filed a claim for compensation benefits for his ailments with the GSIS.  His claim was approved upon a finding that
his illnesses were service-connected and therefore compensable.  He was awarded the corresponding benefits for
8 months under the category rated as Permanent Partial Disability.

Later, he requested conversion of the category to Permanent Total
Disability.  This request was denied on
the ground that he had already been awarded the maximum benefits commensurate
with the degree of his disability.

The denial was elevated on March
7, 1988, to the Employees’ Compensation Commission, which found the
appeal devoid of merit.  Hence, this
petition for review on certiorari, on the sole issue of whether or not
the disability caused by the petitioner’s ailments may be classified as
permanent and total.

The petitioner bases his appeal upon the opinion of his attending
physician, Major Felix M. Reyes, Jr., that his disability is total and
permanent.  In fact, such disability was
described as merely “total” in the GSIS Certification of Attending
Physician and in the Adjudication dated August
22, 1980, of the National Police Commission for his claims.

As the GSIS correctly observes, the petitioner has not even
submitted the certification of the other physicians who attended him when he
was hospitalized on November 6, 1979,
at the PCH/MPF Hospital at Camp Panopio, Quezon City, and on November 13, 1979, at the AFP
Medical Center,
Quezon City.  No corroboration of Major Reyes’s findings
was offered to bolster the petitioner’s claim of “total” disability.

At any rate, the GSIS is not bound by such findings as it is its
own Medical Director who is authorized by law to determine the nature and
degree of a claimant’s ailments, subject to the approval of the Commission.

Dalupe also argues that the benefits
awarded him for permanent partial disability is grossly insufficient and not
commensurate with the degree of his disability. 
Hence, conversion of his disability rating to permanent and total would
only be just and equitable.

This argument cannot stand because the award of his benefits was
determined on the basis of his disability at the time of his separation from
government service and in accordance with the ECC Schedule of Compensation.

As noted by the Solicitor General:

Appendix “E” of the ECC Schedule of Compensation provides
the criteria and rating for said ailment, thus:

“CRITERIA FOR HYPERTENSIVE CARDIO-VASCULAR DISEASE:  All the following conditions
must be satisfied:

“(a)
There must be a history, which should be proved, of trauma at work (to the head
especially), or trauma unusual and extra-ordinary strain or event, or undue
exposure to noxious gases in industry.

“(b) There must
be a direct connection between the trauma of exertion
in the course of the employment of the worker’s collapse.

“(c) If the trauma or exertion
then and there caused a brain hemmorhage which would not have happened, an injury may be
considered as arising from the
work.

“RATING FOR PERMANENT PARTIAL
DISABILITY

“Patients without any cardiovascular changes but whose blood pressure
rises under conditions of stress and strain to well above normal range but
promptly falls down to normal under resting conditions within twenty-four hours
and able to perform ordinary physical
activity . . . . . . .10%

“Patients with or without cardiovascular changes whose
elevated blood pressure requires longer rest periods for its return to normal and whose ordinary physical
activity is slightly limited . . . . . . . . . . . .25%

“Patients with continued hypertension which no longer falls to
normal even at rest and with demonstrable evidence of cardiovascular disease
and whose physical activity is greatly
limited – P.T.D.”

We find, therefore, that respondents ECC and GSIS committed no
abuse of discretion in not converting the petitioner’s disability rating from
permanent and partial to permanent and total.

While as a matter of policy, we incline in case of doubt to
sustain the worker’s claim consistently with the mandate of the Constitution,
we can do so only when the provisions of the applicable law and the facts as
established by the evidence justify such conclusion.  Unfortunately, they do not in the case at bar.

ACCORDINGLY, the petition is DENIED, with costs against
the petitioner.

SO ORDERED.

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