Case Digest (G.R. No. L-20202)
Facts:
Ciriaco Hernandez v. Workmen's Compensation Commission and Manila Electric Company, G.R. No. L-20202, May 31, 1965, the Supreme Court En Banc, Bengzon, J.P., writing for the Court.Petitioner Ciriaco Hernandez was employed by respondent Manila Electric Company (MERALCO) from May 15, 1930 as an automotive mechanic whose duties included dismantling, repair and installation of transmissions, differentials and steering wheels. He was in good health at the time of his hiring. On January 15, 1953 — after 23 years of continuous service — Hernandez was found to be suffering from pulmonary tuberculosis; serial X-rays from 1953 to 1959 showed “minimal, fibrotic infiltration of both apices,” and he received treatment at MERALCO’s clinic. He also underwent operation for an inguinal hernia in 1954 and for carcinoma of the prostate on September 18, 1959.
Pursuant to MERALCO’s retirement circular (retirement at 30 years’ service or at the 60th birthday), MERALCO notified Hernandez on May 8, 1959 that he would be retired on December 31, 1959 and paid his retirement account; at his request he was retired earlier on November 25, 1959 and received retirement benefits (he was then 69 years old). On March 10, 1960 Hernandez filed a Notice of Sickness and Claim for Compensation (amended March 7, 1961), alleging that sickness contracted in the course of employment forced his retirement and that MERALCO failed to pay the compensation due him.
MERALCO answered and the case was first heard by the Department of Labor, Regional Office No. 4. The hearing officer (February 1, 1962) found Hernandez entitled to temporary total disability compensation (P4,000) and ordered payment of attorney’s-fee limits and certain fees. MERALCO petitioned for review before the Workmen’s Compensation Commission (WCC). The Associate Commissioner designated reversed th...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was petitioner entitled to compensation for pulmonary tuberculosis alleged to have arisen in the course of his employment?
- If entitled, is petitioner’s compensation limited in duration to the period from November 25, 1959 to December 31, 1959?
- Was petitioner’s claim for compensation barred by prescription for failure to file wi...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)