Title
Tria vs. Employees' Compensation Commission
Case
G.R. No. 96787
Decision Date
May 8, 1992
A retired postmaster sought to convert his partial disability benefits to total disability due to ischemic heart disease, but the Supreme Court denied his claim, citing inconsistent evidence and lack of work-connected recurrence.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 96787)

Facts of the Case

Tria, who began his service in August 1964, developed Ischemic Heart Disease leading to recurrent fainting spells and related symptoms before his retirement. He filed a compensation claim on April 26, 1985, resulting in an award of PPD benefits for eight months. After expressing dissatisfaction with the awarded benefits, Tria sought additional compensation several times, to no avail. He attempted to return to the Bureau of Posts in April 1987, claiming recovery, but was denied reemployment due to a lack of vacancies. On February 25, 1988, he requested a conversion of his benefits to PTD based on ongoing health issues, which GSIS denied.

Issues for Resolution

The central issues in the case are whether Tria's disability benefits may be converted from PPD to PTD and whether the relevant law (Employees' Compensation Law) should be interpreted liberally in his favor.

Applicable Law

Tria’s case is governed by the Amended Rules on Employees’ Compensation, particularly Sections 2 of Rule VII, which defines permanent partial disability, and Rule X, which discusses conversion to permanent total disability.

Analysis of Disability Classification

The Court determined that Tria’s ailment was permanent partial and did not meet the criteria for a temporary total disability that could convert to permanent total disability. The assessment focused on statutory definitions, concluding that Tria's ailments did not result in total loss of function as required for PTD classification. His medical history indicated that even if symptoms recurred, they did not qualify for a new classification but rather represented a return to a previously acknowledged condition.

Medical Evidence Review

The authenticity of Tria's claims was scrutinized, particularly through contradictory statements regarding his health status. While he claimed full recovery in a reemployment request, subsequent medical certificates indicating newer occurrences of his heart condition raised doubts. The Court noted that the inconsistency in his claims undermined the credibility of his medical evidence.

Employment Status and Implications

Tria's inability to re-enter service was attributed to a lack of job vacancies, not directly to his medical condition. This fact, along with his reported involvement in farming and poultry-raising post-retirement, suggested that

...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.