Title
Herdez vs. Workmen's Compensation Commission
Case
G.R. No. L-20202
Decision Date
May 31, 1965
A long-time MERALCO mechanic, Ciriaco Hernandez, claimed compensation for illnesses (tuberculosis, hernia, prostate cancer) contracted during employment, leading to his retirement. The Supreme Court ruled in his favor, affirming compensability under the Workmen's Compensation Act, rejecting MERALCO's appeal, and awarding disability benefits.
mechanic
tuberculosis
compensation

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-20202)

Factual Background: Employment, Illness, and Retirement

Hernandez was hired by MERALCO on May 15, 1930 and entered service in good health. After decades of continuous employment, he was found on January 15, 1953 to be suffering from pulmonary tuberculosis. From 1953 to 1959, X-ray examinations showed “minimal, fibrotic infiltration of both apices.” During that period, he received treatment for his tuberculosis from MERALCO’s physician at its clinic. Aside from pulmonary tuberculosis, he contracted inguinal hernia, for which he underwent an operation in 1954, and later, on September 18, 1959, he developed carcinoma of the prostate, for which he also underwent surgery.

MERALCO had a general circular on “Leaves and Retirement” providing for retirement when an employee completed thirty years of continuous faithful and satisfactory service or when he reached sixty years of age, with payment of the amount credited to the employee’s “Retirement Account.” On May 8, 1959, MERALCO advised Hernandez that he would be retired on December 31, 1959. However, Hernandez requested early retirement, and MERALCO retired him on November 25, 1959, at which time he was sixty-nine years old.

Filing of Claims Before the Department of Labor

On March 10, 1960, Hernandez filed with the Department of Labor a Notice of Sickness and Claim for Compensation. This was later superseded by an Amended Claim filed on March 7, 1961. He alleged that illness suffered in the course of employment forced him to retire due to disability to work, yet MERALCO did not pay compensation as required by law.

After MERALCO filed an answer controverting the claim, the Department of Labor, Regional Office No. 4, held a hearing.

Department of Labor Hearing Officer’s Award

On February 1, 1962, the hearing officer decided in Hernandez’s favor and adjudged MERALCO to pay P4,000.00 as temporary total disability compensation pursuant to the claim. The hearing officer also ordered MERALCO to pay P41.00 as fees under Sec. 55 of Act No. 3428 and noted limits on attorney’s fees under the rules of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission.

Review and Reversal by the Workmen’s Compensation Commission

MERALCO sought reconsideration through a petition for review before the Workmen’s Compensation Commission. On June 25, 1962, an Associate Commissioner rendered a decision reversing the hearing officer’s award. On motion for reconsideration by Hernandez, the Workmen’s Compensation Commission en banc affirmed the Associate Commissioner’s reversal in a resolution dated August 22, 1962. Hernandez then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Core Findings on Causation of Untimely Retirement

The record established that Hernandez asked for retirement ahead of schedule not because of old age, but principally because of his weakened condition due to illness. At the time of his actual retirement on November 25, 1959, he was still under treatment for pulmonary tuberculosis. The Court noted that the tuberculosis was “definitely pronounced arrested only on April 6, 1961.” The Employer’s Report of Sickness stated that Hernandez retired due to “minimal PTB, bilateral, fibroid.” Thus, the Court held that Hernandez’s sickness contracted in the course of employment, not merely his age, was responsible for his untimely retirement occurring thirty-six days ahead of the scheduled retirement date.

The Commission’s Reason for Denying Compensation

The Workmen’s Compensation Commission rejected compensation for Hernandez’s tuberculosis on the ground that because it took twenty-three years for the disease to “manifest itself,” it could not have been due to the conditions of work. In rejecting the claim, the Commission treated the long latency before manifestation as negating compensability.

Supreme Court’s Treatment of the Statutory Presumption and Agustin Doctrine

The Supreme Court ruled that the Commission’s view conflicted with Agustin vs. WCC (L-19957, September 29, 1964). In Agustin, the Court had held that once the disease was shown to have arisen in the course of employment, the law presumes—absent substantial evidence to the contrary—that it arose out of the employment. The Court explained that the fact of a long interval before manifestation did not constitute substantial evidence that the disease did not arise from work conditions. It characterized the Commission’s reasoning as speculation, because it did not exclude the probability that workplace conditions reduced the laborer’s resistance over time, eventually permitting infection to take hold. The Court further stated that the number of years elapsed before manifestation only tended to show slow deterioration, not that the workplace had not caused such deterioration.

Applying Agustin, the Supreme Court held that Hernandez’s tuberculosis, which was admitted to have been contracted in the course of employment, fell within the statutory presumption. The Court therefore found the Commission’s basis for denying compensation untenable.

Scope of Compensation: Limitation to the Period Before Scheduled Retirement

Having recognized Hernandez’s entitlement to compensation for pulmonary tuberculosis, the Court found it unnecessary to resolve whether his inguinal hernia and carcinoma of the prostate likewise entitled him to compensation. It limited the award to the period of Hernandez’s inability to work during the remaining thirty-six days before his scheduled compulsory retirement.

Because Hernandez was retirable on December 31, 1959 and had in fact received his retirement benefits, the Court held that it could not be said that after that date his inability to work was due to his sickness. The Court found no evidentiary basis to support an award beyond December 31, 1959, reasoning that Hernandez’s earning capacity—independent of his illness—ended on that date, and compensation payments, which are premised on loss or impairment of earning capacity due to illness or injury, cannot extend beyond the cessation of earning capacity.

The Court distinguished compensation from medical and hospital services and supplies. It held that an employer’s obligation to provide medical services and supplies subsists until the illness is cured or arrested under Section 13 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, as long as the illness was contracted during employment, citing Itogon-Suyoc Mines, Inc. vs. Dulay (L-18974, September 30, 1963). In the present case, the Court stated that it involved only compensation payments because MERALCO had “voluntarily provided” Hernandez with medical and hospital services and supplies.

Prescription and Filing Requirements

The Court addressed prescription and filing requirements. It held that MERALCO’s voluntary furnishing of medical services and supplies dispensed with the need for Hernandez to file his notice of sickness within the statutory time limit under Section 24 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act. It then considered the two-month period for filing a claim. The Court declared that the period should be counted from the date when the disease or illness becomes compensable—specifically, from the date the employee becomes physically disabled to work—citing Peter Paul Philippine Corporation vs. WCC (L-19612, July 30, 1964).

On the facts, the Court held that Hernandez became disabled only on November 25, 1959. Although his formal claim was filed on March 10, 1960, which was beyond two months, the Court found substantial compliance due to the circumstances: Hernandez’s request for early retirement on November 25, 1959 was predicated on sickness causing disability to work until his scheduled retirement on December 31, 1959. The Court reasoned that this substantially fulfilled the requirement because MERALCO could not plead surprise in preparing its defense, which the Court identified as the only reason for requiring an early filing of the claim, citing Luzon Stevedores Co., Inc. vs. WCC (L-19742, January 31, 1964).

Computation of Weekly Compensation

The Court computed Hernandez’s applicable average weekly wage as P69.60 (stated as P11.60 x 6 days). It held that sixty percent of that amount was P41.76. Under the statutory maximum weekly compensation, Hernandez was entitled to P35.00 weekly compensation for the period from November 25, 1959 to December 31, 1959, exclusive of the first three days,

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms