Case Digest (G.R. No. L-7310)
Facts:
Antonio Manimtim v. Co Cho Chit, G.R. No. L-7310, December 28, 1957, Supreme Court, Endencia, J., writing for the Court. Plaintiff-appellant Antonio Manimtim sued his employer Co Cho Chit (owner of the shop Grace Park Engineering, Inc.) to recover compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation law for loss of sight allegedly resulting from a workplace accident.On May 27, 1948, while sharpening an auger on a grinding machine at defendant’s shop, plaintiff sustained a flying piece of metal that pierced his right eye. He was sent to the Chinese General Hospital where Dr. Amando V. Santos removed the foreign body and performed an iridectomy; the lens was found opaque and optic nerve atrophy developed, producing total loss of vision in the right eye. The employer paid hospital and doctor’s bills and wages during confinement. After the operation, plaintiff began experiencing pain and progressive dimness in his left eye. Examinations by the Bureau of Labor medical officers (including Drs. Teofilo V. Gonzales, Jose S. Santillan, and later Dr. Alfredo A. Gorospe) showed total blindness of the right eye and, after tests (negative Kahn’s test), led Dr. Gorospe to conclude the left-eye disability was due to sympathetic ophthalmia — a transferred infection from the injured right eye.
In July 1948 defendant’s counsel prepared a written settlement (Exhibit X) by which plaintiff would accept P1,402.47 and “release completely and forever whatever claim or claims for compensation” arising from the accident. A check was deposited with the Bureau on July 12, 1948; plaintiff signed the agreement on July 14, 1948 after being told it covered payment for his right eye; the document was notarized only on March 2, 1949. While the Bureau’s medical papers on the left-eye claim were still being processed, plaintiff filed suit in the Municipal Court of Manila seeking compensation (the complaint initially recites recovery of P11,446 as unpaid balance, and in later pleadings plaintiff sought P1,446).
The Municipal Court dismissed the complaint, relying chiefly on the release (Exhibit X) and on the view that no statutory provision authorized compensation for “aggravated” injury. The Court of First Instance of Manila affirmed the dismissal and additionally found that Dr. Gorospe was not an eye specialist and therefore his conclusion on sympathe...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was defendant liable for the loss of sight of plaintiff’s left eye where that loss was alleged to have resulted from sympathetic ophthalmia transferred from the injured right eye?
- Did the release agreement (Exhibit X) executed on July 14, 1948 bar plaintiff’s claim for compensation for the subsequent loss of...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)