Case Digest (G.R. No. 154093)
Facts:
Government Service Insurance System v. Leo L. Cadiz, G.R. No. 154093, July 08, 2003, the Supreme Court First Division, Ynares-Santiago, J., writing for the Court.The petitioner is Government Service Insurance System (GSIS); the respondent is Leo L. Cadiz, a retired police officer who sought disability compensation. Cadiz began public service as a Provincial Guard on July 1, 1968, entered police service on March 16, 1974, rose to the rank of Police Chief Superintendent, and retired on March 19, 1999 at age 55. In October 1996 he suffered a heart attack and was treated for atrial fibrillation, congestive heart failure and related conditions; the PNP Medical and Dental Service later found him “UNFIT FOR POLICE SERVICE” and he was retired for disability.
After retirement, Cadiz filed a disability claim with GSIS, attaching his service record and PNP General Order showing retirement for permanent total disability. On November 25, 1999, Dr. Gervillana B. Estrada (GSIS Medical Officer, Dumaguete) initially approved permanent total disability (PTD) benefits beginning March 19, 1999, plus temporary total disability (TTD) for October–November 1996. The GSIS Medical Service Group in Pasay, however, directed re-evaluation under PD 626, and on January 29, 2000 Dr. Estrada revised her recommendation: she retained TTD for October–November 1996 but downgraded the PTD award to compensation equivalent to eight months’ permanent partial disability.
Cadiz sought reconsideration but the GSIS denied relief; on administrative appeal the Employees’ Compensation Commission (ECC) affirmed the GSIS decision, reasoning that the ECC Schedule’s primary criteria for PTD (e.g., paralysis of two limbs, total blindness, brain injury producing incurable imbecility, loss of two limbs at or above ankle/wrist) were not met and that the maximum benefits had already been awarded. Cadiz then petitioned the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. SP No. 63521), which on June 21, 2002 ...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Is respondent Leo L. Cadiz entitled to permanent total disability benefits? ...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)