Title
Aranzanso vs. Sagnit
Case
G.R. No. L-40658
Decision Date
Jun 30, 1976
Aranzanso, on vacation, suffered a stroke; Supreme Court ruled his illness compensable under Workmen's Compensation Act, reinstating disability benefits.
Font Size:

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-40658)

Background of the Case

  • The petitioner, Crisostomo Aranzanso, was employed by Gami Machineries, Inc. as a carpenter since 1968.
  • On September 5, 1971, while on vacation, he suffered a stroke.
  • He was treated at the Galauran Memorial Clinic and later at the National Orthopedic Hospital.
  • The Compensation Rating Medical Officer determined that he was totally disabled from September 16, 1971, to February 20, 1973.
  • Petitioner filed a claim for disability benefits under the Workmen's Compensation Act, which was initially granted by the Acting Referee.

Initial Award and Subsequent Reversal

  • The Acting Referee awarded the petitioner temporary and permanent disability benefits, along with reimbursement for medical expenses.
  • The respondent company contested the claim, arguing that the stroke occurred while the petitioner was on vacation and was not work-related.
  • The Workmen's Compensation Commission reviewed the case and reversed the Acting Referee's decision, dismissing the claim on the grounds that the illness was not compensable since it occurred during a leave of absence.

Legal Principles on Employment and Vacation

  • The Supreme Court emphasized that vacation days are considered part of the employment period.
  • If an employee suffers an injury or illness during vacation, it is deemed to have arisen out of employment and is therefore compensable.
  • The court noted that public policy supports the right of employees to take leave for health and well-being.

Presumption of Work-Related Illness

  • The court reiterated the doctrine that an illness is presumed to have arisen out of employment if it occurs during the employment period.
  • The burden of proof lies with the employer to demonstrate that the illness did not arise from employment.
  • The employee is not required to prove causation; rather, it is sufficient to show that the illness is probable to be work-related.

Evaluation of Evidence and Conclusion

  • The records did not provide substantial evidence that the petitioner’s illness was caused by factors unrelated to his employment.
  • Even if other factors contributed to the illness, this does not negate the compensability of the claim.
  • The court concl...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.