Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1978 > September 1978 Decisions > G.R. No. L-43083 September 30, 1978 - GREGORIO BALLESTAMON v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-43083. September 30, 1978.]

GREGORIO BALLESTAMON (deceased) substituted by CARIDAD VDA. DE BALLESTAMON, Petitioner, v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION and PHILIPPINE NATIONAL RAILWAYS, Respondents.

Juan R. Moreno for Petitioner.

Jose B. Calimlim & Nueva Nuyda-Joson for respondent PNR.

SYNOPSIS


Petitioner had been employed with the Philippine National Railways (former Manila Railroad Company) as first class storekeeper or warehouseman since 1938. His work considered of lifting heavy bales, crates and bundles of cargoes stored in the bodega. In 1964 petitioner contracted pulmonary tuberculosis, which deteriorated into an advance stage. In April 1971 while in the performance of his duties, claimant suffered serious hymopthesis. Then he vomited blood thus forcing him to apply for retirement under Republic Act 660. His application was approved on August 1, 1971.

Petitioner (later substituted by his widow) filed a claim for disability compensation with Regional Office No. 4 of the Department of Labor but the Acting Referee dismissed the claim on the ground that the claimant had already received retirement pay when he retired under Act No. 660 at the age of 63 years. On appeal, the Workmen’s Compensation Commission en banc affirmed the Referee’s decision stating, among others, that optional retirement without disability does not entitle the retiree to compensation benefits under the Workmen’s Compensation Act.

The Supreme Court held that the law presumes, in the absence of substantial evidence to the contrary that a claim for compensation due to a supervening ailment is compensable and burden to disconnect by substantial evidence the injury or sickness from employment is laid by law at the employer’s door.

Appealed decision set aside.


SYLLABUS


1. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION; EVIDENCE; PRESUMPTION OF COMPENSABILITY; BURDEN OF PROOF. — The law presumes, in the absence of substantial evidence to the contrary, that a claim is compensable if the injury or sickness supervened during the employment. The burden to disconnect by substantial evidence the injury or sickness from employment is laid at the employer’s door. So rigid is the rules that even when the cause of the employee’s death is unknown, the right to compensation subsists. The reason for this is that the Workmen’s Compensation Act is a social legislation. It is designed to give relief to the workmen. Therefore, to effectuate its purpose, it must be liberally construed.

2. ID.; DISABILITY; RETIREMENT DUE TO DISABILITY ENTITLES RETIREE TO COMPENSATION AND MEDICAL BENEFITS. — Where claimant had to retire at the age of 63 years because he was disabled from performing the normal duties of his work by an advance pulmonary tuberculosis which supervened during his employment, he is entitled to disability benefits and to reimbursement of medical expenses which may be supported by proper receipts.


D E C I S I O N


FERNANDEZ, J.:


This is a petition to review the decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission in R04-WC Case No. 139172 entitled "Gregorio Ballestamon, Claimant, versus, Philippine National Railways, Respondent," affirming the order of dismissal of the Hearing Officer of Labor Regional Office No. 4, Manila, and absolving the respondent, Philippine National Railways, from any liability under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. 1

The late Gregorio Ballestamon was formerly employed with the Philippine National Railways as first class storekeeper or warehouseman with an annual salary of P4,920.00. Gregorio Ballestamon had been employed with the Manila Railroad Company and later with the Philippine National Railways, since 1938 up to August 1, 1971. As warehouseman, his work consisted in lifting heavy loads such as bales, crates and bundles of cargoes stored in the bodega. The claimant incurred pulmonary tuberculosis as early as 1964. The illness deteriorated into an advanced stage in 1970. In April 1971, while in the actual performance of his work as warehouseman, Gregorio Ballestamon suffered serious hymopthesis. He vomited blood on account of his illness of advanced pulmonary tuberculosis. As a consequence, Ballestamon applied for retirement under Republic Act No. 660. The application for retirement was approved on August 1, 1971. At the time of the retirement of the claimant, his pulmonary tuberculosis was already in an advanced stage. 2

On March 13, 1973, Gregorio Ballestamon filed with the Regional Office No. 4 of the Department of Labor in Manila a claim for disability compensation. During the pendency of this claim, the claimant died on June 12, 1974. On June 23, 1975, a petition for substitution was filed by the widow, Caridad Vda. de Ballestamon. On September 18, 1975, the Acting Referee of the Regional Office No. 4 dismissed the claim principally on the ground that the claimant had already received retirement pay when he retired at the age of 63 years under Act 660. The widow of the claimant elevated the case to the Workmen’s Compensation Commission for review. On February 12, 1976, a decision en banc was rendered by the Commission affirming the order of dismissal on the ground, among others, that optional retirement without disability does not give the retiree a right to compensation benefit under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, as amended. 3

The record shows that Gregorio Ballestamon was in good health at the time he was employed by the Manila Railroad Company, predecessor of the Philippine National Railways. During his employment, he was afflicted with pulmonary tuberculosis which became so far advanced that he had to apply for retirement under Republic Act No. 660, as amended, at the age of 63 years after having rendered 39 years of service with the Philippine National Railways. On June 12, 1974, Gregorio Ballestamon died as a result of the pulmonary tuberculosis which supervened during his employment with the Philippine National Railways.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

The respondent, Philippine National Railways, contends that:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"It is true that the benefits granted to the deceased in the case at bar under RA 660, as amended, is not a bar to claim under the Workmen’s Compensation Case as held by this Hon. Supreme Court in the case of Falcon v. Mathay, G. R. No. L-30303, August 31, 1970.

However, the Falcon case should not be made applicable to instant claim as the records of this case clearly conveyed the conclusion that the claimant’s illness did not disable him for labor nor did it contribute in any way in impairing his capacity to work. As pointed out by the Commission, optional retirement without disability negates compensation under the Act.

Herein respondent company submits to the contention of the doctrine of legal presumption to the effect that once it is shown that the employee suffered any injury or accident in the course of his employment, the presumption is that the claim comes within the purview of the Workmen’s Compensation Act.

However, in the instant case, record is bereft of any evidence that claimant herein suffered any disability in the course of his employment with the PNR. On the contrary, it appears from his service record that he continuously worked up to the last day of his service on August 1, 1973. There was no showing that he was incapacitated to work while still an employee or even prior to his retirement. For if indeed he stopped working, it was due to his retirement and not because of any disability. It is to be noted that this case was dismissed on three occasions because claimant herein failed to show that his alleged illness has produced disability for labor which can entitle him to compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, as amended." 4

The foregoing contention is devoid of merit.

It is a fact that Gregorio Ballestamon became sick of pulmonary tuberculosis in 1964. The law presumes, in the absence of substantial evidence to the contrary, that the claim is compensable inasmuch as the sickness of pulmonary tuberculosis supervened during the employment of Gregorio Ballestamon, claimant, with the Philippine National Railways. The burden to disconnect by substantial evidence the injury or sickness from employment is laid at the employer’s door. The Philippine National Railways failed to discharge this burden. So rigid is the rule that even when the cause of the employee’s death is unknown, the right to compensation subsists. The reason for this is that the Workmen’s Compensation Act is a social legislation. It is designed to give relief to the workman. Therefore, to effectuate its purpose, it must be liberally construed. 5

Precisely, the claimant, Gregorio Ballestamon, had to retire at the age of 63 years because he was disabled from performing the normal duties of his work by pulmonary tuberculosis which supervened during his employment with the Philippine National Railways. Under the established facts and circumstances, he is entitled to disability benefits and to reimbursement of medical expenses which may be supported by proper receipts.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby set aside and the respondent, Philippine National Railways, is ordered:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

1) To pay Candida Vda. de Ballestamon, widow of the claimant, Gregorio Ballestamon, the sum of Six Thousand Pesos (P6,000.00) as disability benefits;

2) To reimburse the petitioner medical expenses which may be supported by proper receipts;

3) To pay counsel of the petitioner the amount of Six Hundred Pesos (P600.00) as attorney’s fees; and

4) To pay the successor of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission the amount of Sixty One Pesos (P61.00) as administrative fees.

SO ORDERED.

Teehankee (Chairman), Makasiar, Muñoz Palma and Guerrero, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. Annex "E", Rollo, pp. 26-27.

2. Memorandum for the Petitioner, Rollo, p. 49.

3. Memorandum of the Respondent, Philippine National Railways, Rollo, p. 55.

4. Ibid., Rollo, pp. 56-57.

5. Manila Railroad Company v. Workmen’s Compensation Commission, Et Al., 21 SCRA 98, 103.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






September-1978 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-30375 September 12, 1978 - JOSE ESCRIBANO v. DAVID P. AVILA

  • G.R. No. L-46027 September 15, 1968 JOSEFINO C. DRACULAN v. PROCORO J. DONATO

  • G.R. No. L-39344 September 18, 1978 - RICARDO JANDOG v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-45485 September 19, 1978 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RUFINO DE LA CRUZ

  • G.R. No. L-41187 September 29, 1978 - JUAN LAMBIQUIT v. GERONIMO MARAVE

  • G.R. No. 1170-CFI September 30, 1978 - NIEVES L. RITUAL v. ERNESTO P. VALENCIA

  • G.R. No. L-23128 September 30, 1978 - MALAYAN INSURANCE CO., INC. v. MANILA PORT SERVICE

  • G.R. No. L-24874 September 30, 1978 - CORNELIO MACANDILE v. ARTEMIO C. MACALINO

  • G.R. No. L-30924 September 30, 1978 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARNULFO BANGSAL

  • G.R. No. L-36603 September 30, 1978 - DOROTEO TOLEDO, JR. v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-38134 September 30, 1978 - JESUS R. AZNAR v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-39075 September 30, 1978 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REDENTOR TIBAYAN

  • G.R. No. L-41351 September 30, 1978 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. LUIS LARDIZABAL

  • G.R. No. L-42536 September 30, 1978 - FRANCISCO CARRERA v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. L-42648 September 30, 1978 - CARMELITA ACOSTA-OFALIA v. CARLOS L. SUNDIAM

  • G.R. No. L-42896 September 30, 1978 - CECILIA R. PARAISO v. HERMINIA CASTELO-SOTTO

  • G.R. No. L-43036 September 30, 1978 - DOMINGO LOPEZ v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. L-43083 September 30, 1978 - GREGORIO BALLESTAMON v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. L-43226 September 30, 1978 - GREGORIA MARQUEZ v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. L-43471 September 30, 1978 - JOSE TORALDE v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. L-43690 September 30, 1978 - SANCHO SEBASTIAN v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. L-43691 September 30, 1978 - FELICISIMO LIGASON v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. L-43942 September 30, 1978 - APRONIANO ALABAT v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. L-44077 September 30, 1978 - ELIODORA C. VDA. DE CORPUZ v. COMMANDING GENERAL, PHILIPPINE ARMY

  • G.R. No. L-48471 September 30, 1978 - BETTY A. DACUYAN v. FIDEL RAMOS