G.R. No. 19857 - Iloilo Ice and Cold Storage Co. vs. Public Utility Board

Ibarra P. Ortega, a member of the Social Security System (SSS), initially filed claims for partial permanent disability benefits due to his condition of Generalized Arthritis and Partial Ankylosis.
He was granted partial benefits twice—for a total monthly pension equivalent to 23 months—based on the extent of his disability as determined by the SSS.
After the expiration of his disability pension, petitioner filed a claim for total permanent disability benefits with the SSS Malabon Branch Office on April 26, 2000.

The SSS denied his application for total permanent disability on the ground that he had already received benefits for the same illness and that his physical examinations did not show any progression of his condition.
Dr. Juanillo Descalzo III, the branch’s senior physician, noted only a “slight limitation of grasping movement for both hands.”
Petitioner, contesting the SSS findings, cited divergent diagnoses from his attending physician (Dr. Rafael Recto, Jr.) and a private practitioner (Dr. Flo dela Cruz), who reported multiple ailments including trigger finger, bronchial asthma, hypertension, and gastro-esophageal reflux disease.
Despite objections and allegations of fraudulent findings presented in subsequent letters-opposition, the SSS Medical Program Department—through evaluations by Dr. Carlota A. Cruz-Tutaan, Dr. Jesus S. Tan, and later by Dr. Rebecca Sison (after a mandated domiciliary visit in August 2002)—confirmed that there was no sufficient progression or basis to classify his condition as total permanent disability.

Petitioner initially filed an unverified petition before the Social Security Commission (SSC) on June 19, 2000, alleging that his claim was unjustly denied despite supporting medical opinions over the brief SSS examination.
The SSC required petitioner to exhaust administrative remedies, leading to a series of submissions, oppositions, and motions for reconsideration, including a noteworthy letter-opposition on November 11, 2000 accusing the SSS medical officers of issuing fraudulent findings.
In a subsequent procedural step, the SSS Medical Program Department, by its final letter dated November 22, 2000, denied petitioner’s claim with finality.
Despite petitioner’s compliance with SSC directives (such as verification and submission of additional documents), the SSC reaffirmed its denial via a Resolution on April 3, 2002, determining that petitioner’s condition did not meet the statutory criteria for total permanent disability under the Social Security Law.
Later, petitioner moved for reconsideration, which resulted in an additional physical examination by Dr. Rebecca Sison, whose findings again did not support the granting of total permanent disability benefits.

Petitioner filed a petition with the Court of Appeals and, in doing so, combined two distinct remedies—certiorari (under Rule 65) and review on appeal (under Rule 45)—in one pleading.
The petitioner’s unusual strategy of joining a petition for review on certiorari with one for certiorari as an original action was contrary to established judicial principles, which stipulate that these remedies are mutually exclusive and should not be intermingled.
Petitioner later attempted to correct the pleading’s caption, but the error served only to underscore his confusion regarding the proper recourse, as the appropriate remedy under the circumstances was a petition for review under Rule 45.

Whether the petitioner’s two-headed pleading, which simultaneously sought relief under Rule 45 and Rule 65, is procedurally acceptable.
Whether the petitioner’s choice of remedy—blending appeal and certiorari—violated the principle that these remedies are mutually exclusive, with distinct functions and applications.

Whether the substantial evidence gathered and the multiple medical examinations by SSS physicians sufficiently supported the denial of total permanent disability benefits.
Whether the petitioner’s contentions that his condition had worsened—supported by external medical opinions—could override the findings of the SSS-appointed medical experts.

Whether the petitioner is permitted to introduce new factual issues, such as his subsequent heart attack and related procedures, which were not raised during the administrative proceedings.
Whether such subsequent events could be considered in determining his entitlement to benefits, given the rule against raising new factual evidence on appeal.