Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1982 > January 1982 Decisions > G.R. No. L-46362 January 30, 1982 - PEDRITA S. MARTE v. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-46362. January 30, 1982.]

PEDRITA S. MARTE, Petitioner, v. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION, Respondent.

Felipe F. Montessa for Petitioner.

Teofilo E. Hebron and Teresita Cabudoy-Marbibi for respondent ECC.

SYNOPSIS


A decision was rendered by the Supreme Court awarding total disability benefits to petitioner, a public school teacher, based on the medical certificate issued by her physician, Dr. Jeorge O. Limjoco. The respondent, represented by the Government Service Insurance System, was ordered to pay petitioner the amount of P12,000.00 as disability income benefits, to reimburse petitioner’s medical and hospital expenses supported by receipts, and to pay attorney’s tees equivalent to 10% of the amount of the award. The Government Service Insurance System filed a motion for partial reconsideration of the decision on the ground that the grant of attorney’s fees was improper, and prayed for the amendment of The decision in relation to the medical evaluation of petitioner’s claim which should not have been taken at face value in view of the numerous and bloated claims filed with the Government Service Insurance System and for failure of the petitioner to undergo medical examination conducted by the medical officers of the Government Service Insurance System.

On review, the Supreme Court held that the prohibition against charging of attorney’s fees within the context of Article 203 of the Labor Code does not cover cases wherein said fees are chargeable against the Government Service Insurance System for denying valid claims thus forcing claimants to unnecessarily resort to the Court to seek justice; and that the inability or failure of the Government Service Insurance System to forestall or check spurious or bloated claims should not be a basis for, nor justify challenging a court decision.

Judgment was, however, modified. The amount of the attorney’s fees was reduced to 5% of the amount of the award as the Labor Code had doubled the maximum compensation benefit for permanent total disability.


SYLLABUS


1. LABOR AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION; NEW LABOR CODE; GOVERNMENT INSURANCE SERVICE SYSTEM; LIABILITY FOR PAYMENT OF ATTORNEY’S FEES. — The liability of the Government Service Insurance System for payment of attorney’s fees has already been passed upon by this Court in Cristobal v. ECC & GSIS (L-49280, Feb. 26, 1981) where it became clear that the prohibition against charging of attorney’s fees within the context of Article 203 of the Labor Code does not cover cases wherein said fees are chargeable against the Government Service Insurance System for denying valid claims thus forcing claimants to unnecessarily resort to Court for justice. Such fees may be made chargeable against the State Insurance Fund. If and when the State Insurance Fund can no longer absorb payment of attorney’s fees, the same could be charged against the other sources of income of the Government Service Insurance System. After all, the System was conceived and organized primarily to service its members, like herein petitioner, who contribute so the funds that enable it to operate and to pay the salaries of its own employees. Such funds, together with the retirement contribution of all government employees, are invested by the Government Service Insurance System.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; ALLOWABLE AMOUNT IN CASE AT BAR. — In view of the fact that the Labor Code, as amended, had doubled the maximum compensation benefit for permanent total disability, the ten percent (10%) attorney’s fees should be reduced to the reasonable proportion of five percent (5%) of the amount awarded.

3. ID.; ID.; ID.; CLAIM FOR INCOME BENEFITS; INABILITY OF THE GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM TO FORESTALL OR CHECK SPURIOUS CLAIMS; NOT A BASIS NOR A JUSTIFICATION FOR CHALLENGING A COURT DECISION; CASE AT BAR. — The fact that the Government Service Insurance System has discovered or encountered many alleged "spurious or bloated" claims does not mean that herein petitioner is involved in such anomaly. It is unfair to make her answer for acts allegedly committed by other claimants. The master of fake and padded claims is an internal problem of the Government Service Insurance System. The inability or failure of the Government Service Insurance System to forestall or check spurious or bloated claims should not be a basis for, nor justify challenging a court decision.


R E S O L U T I O N


MAKASIAR, J.:


On March 31, 1980, We rendered a decision in this case finding that petitioner Pedrita Marte, a public school classroom teacher since 1939, has fully established the veracity and authenticity of the medical certificate of her physician, Dr. Jorge O. Limjoco and that said medical certificate is sufficient to support her claim for permanent total disability benefits. Accordingly, We directed respondent Employees’ Compensation Commission (represented by GSIS):chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

1) to pay petitioner the sum of twelve thousand [P12,000.00] pesos as disability income benefits;

2) to reimburse petitioner’s medical and hospital expenses duly supported by receipts; and

3) to pay her by way of attorney’s fees the sum equivalent to 10% of the amount of the award.

On May 19, 1980, the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) filed a motion for partial reconsideration based on the ground that the grant of attorney’s fees in the sum equivalent to 10% of the award is improper. It also prayed for the amendment of aforesaid decision in accordance with the following manifestations in relation to the medical evaluation of claimants for compensation:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

1) The GSIS Medical Evaluation and Underwriting Group has been discovering numerous spurious and bloated claims and in view thereof, respondent GSIS does not agree to the Court’s pronouncement that the medical certificate of petitioner’s attending physician should have been taken at face value;

2) On its failure to have petitioner examined by its own medical officer and its reliance on the mere evaluation of its medical officer without a first-hand personal examination, the general policy of the GSIS is that as much as possible, the claimant should be examined by its own medical officers or in the nearest government hospital but due to numerous claims and time constraints, such policy cannot be strictly followed so that very often, it has to rely on evaluations of findings of the attending physicians of claimants; and

3) On its non-compliance with its duty of giving petitioner the required notice of examination, respondent GSIS asserts that the law does not really impose upon it the duty to conduct a yearly examination.

On August 23, 1980, petitioner filed her comments to the motion of the GSIS for partial reconsideration praying that the said motion, insofar as the deletion of the grant of attorney’s fees from the decision be denied.chanrobles.com : virtual law library

WE cannot sustain the views of respondent GSIS.

The liability of the GSIS for payment of attorney’s fees has already been passed upon by this Court in the case of Luz G. Cristobal v. ECC & GSIS (L-49280, February 16, 1981) wherein We enunciated:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"A close examination of the aforequoted provision reveals that the intent of the law is to free the award from any liability or charge so that the claimant may enjoy and use it to the fullest. It is the claimant who is exempt from liability for attorney’s fees. The defaulting employer or government agency remains liable for attorney’s fees because it compelled the claimant to employ the services of counsel by unjustly refusing to recognize the validity of the claim of petitioner. This actually is the rationale behind the prohibition. Nothing is wrong with the court’s award of attorney’s fees which is separate and distinct from the other benefits awarded. Besides, in the instant case, the participation of petitioner’s counsel was not limited to the preparation or filing of the claim but in appealing petitioner’s case before this Court necessitating submission of pleadings to establish his cause of action and to rebut or refute the arguments of herein respondents. Fairness dictates that the counsel should receive compensation for his services; otherwise, it would be entirely difficult for claimants, majority of whom are not learned in the intricacies of the law, to get good legal advice. To deny counsel compensation for his professional services, would amount to deprivation of property without due process of law."cralaw virtua1aw library

It becomes clear that the prohibition against charging of attorney’s fees within the context of Article 203 does not cover cases wherein said fees are chargeable against the GSIS for denying valid claims thus forcing claimants to unnecessarily resort to the Court to seek justice. In the case of Nadura v. Benguet Consolidated, Inc. (L-17780, August 24, 1962, 5 SCRA 879), We ruled:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"In connection with attorney’s fees, Art. 2208 of the New Civil Code provides that ‘while the rule is that, in the absence of stipulation, attorney’s fees cannot be recovered, they may be awarded, in the discretion of the court, in actions for the recovery of wages of household helpers, laborers and skilled workers.’

x       x       x


"Moreover, the same legal provision provides that attorney’s fees may be awarded in any other case where the court deems it just and equitable. Therefore, whether it is under one or the other case, Nadura is entitled to recover attorney’s fees because Benguet’s refusal to pay him the severance pay he was entitled to receive forced him to go to court to enforce his right."cralaw virtua1aw library

Finally, if and when the State Insurance Fund can no longer absorb payment of attorney’s fees, the same could be charged against the other sources of income of the GSIS. After all, the System was conceived and organized primarily to service its members, like herein petitioner, who contribute to the funds that enable it to operate and to pay the salaries of its own employees. Such funds, together with the retirement contributions of all government employees, are invested by the GSIS.

The fact that the GSIS has discovered or encountered many alleged "spurious and bloated" claims, does not mean that herein petitioner is involved in such anomaly. It is unfair to make her answer for acts allegedly committed by other claimants. The matter of fake and padded claims is an internal problem of the GSIS. The inability or failure of the GSIS to forestall or check spurious or bloated claims should not be a basis for, nor justify challenging a court decision. The GSIS has the resources to provide for the facilities to save it from being victimized by dishonest claimants and conniving physicians. If this were allowed to happen, then every compensation case brought before this Court would never be resolved with finality. Since the aforesaid problem is strictly internal, the proper remedy is for the GSIS to put up a foolproof system of processing claims or improve on the present system, if one is already existing. WE are particularly concerned over the prolonged ordeal of the faithful members of the System in applying for compensation benefits. Why should legitimate claimants be prejudiced unnecessarily by fraudulent claimants?

Another legal remedy available to the GSIS is civil action for recovery against, or criminal prosecution of claimants who file fraudulent or bloated claims together with conspiring physicians. And if the guilty claimant is still in the service, administrative discipline is an additional remedy against him. Likewise, the culpable physician is subject to discipline by the Professional Regulation Commission which may be include revocation of his license to practice.cralawnad

By its own admission, while the general policy of the GSIS is to have the claimant examined by its own medical officers or in the nearest government hospital, it has not succeeded in implementing fully said policy, nor devised a system by which claimants’ medical examination may be facilitated.

Hence, it is suggested that if the claimants cannot be examined by its medical officers or should the same be insufficient to cope with the bulk of claims, then GSIS should designate or accredit government hospitals and physicians in all regions, provinces, cities and municipalities. If these would still be inadequate, the System should additionally accredit or deputize private hospitals, clinics and physicians. If the foregoing would still be insufficient, then the claimant’s attending physician should be recognized upon his Hippocratic oath. Should their certification turn out to be false or erroneous, then the remedy would be a civil suit, criminal prosecution and revocation of his physician’s license, as above insinuated.

However, in view of the fact that the Labor Code, as amended, had doubled the maximum compensation benefit for permanent total disability, the Court believes that the allowable attorney’s fees should be reduced to the reasonable proportion of five (5%) percent of the amount awarded.

WHEREFORE, PARAGRAPH THREE (3) OF THE DISPOSITIVE PORTION OF THE DECISION OF MARCH 31, 1980 IS HEREBY MODIFIED TO READ AS FOLLOWS:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"x       x       x

"3. TO PAY HER BY WAY OF ATTORNEY’S FEES THE SUM EQUIVALENT TO FIVE (5%) PERCENT OF THE AMOUNT OF THE AWARD."cralaw virtua1aw library

SO ORDERED.

Fernando, C.J., Barredo, Concepcion, Jr., Fernandez, Guerrero, Abad Santos, De Castro, Ericta and Escolin, JJ., concur.

Teehankee, J., concurs in the result in line with my separate opinion of March 31, 1980.

Melencio-Herrera and Plana, JJ., concurs in the result.

Aquino, J., took no part.




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






January-1982 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-57351 January 16, 1982 - MACARIO FESTIN, ET AL. v. JORY F. FADERANGA, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 2252-CFI January 18, 1982 - RUFINO IGNACIO v. MANUEL E. VALENZUELA

  • G.R. No. L-27305 January 18, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VIRGILIO LAYNO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28030 January 18, 1982 - IMPERIAL INSURANCE, INC. v. WALFRIDO DE LOS ANGELES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28273 January 18, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SOFRONIO AMOTO

  • G.R. No. L-34629 January 18, 1982 - IN RE: CHOA PECK v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-37912 January 18, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RUFO PATINGA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-46661 January 18, 1982 - FELISA C. EVANGELISTA v. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-47411 January 18, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EUFEMIO P. CAPARAS

  • G.R. No. L-48643 January 18, 1982 - DIOSDADO OCTOT v. JOSE R. YBAÑEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-51001 January 18, 1982 - RICARDO LU, ET AL. v. NUMERIANO L. VALERIANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 57341 January 18, 1982 - LOUELLA G. JIMENEZ v. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-32322-23 January 27, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDUARDO J. FERNANDEZ

  • G.R. No. L-33064 January 27, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FERNANDO PERELLO, JR., ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 1263 January 30, 1982 - FELICIDAD DE GUZMAN-SARMIENTO v. GODOFREDO A. VILLALON

  • A.C. No. 1298 January 30, 1982 - ROMAN GADOR v. ISIDRO BAYAWA

  • A.M. No. 1492-MJ January 30, 1982 - JOSE PEÑALOSA v. ALFREDO A. ROSERO

  • A.M. No. 2499-CCC January 30, 1982 - RAYMUNDO G. GARCIA v. AMANTE Q. ALCONCEL

  • A.M. No. P-2624 January 30, 1982 - COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. RAMON D. SANGALANG

  • G.R. No. L-27274 January 30, 1982 - ROSITA YAP VDA. DE CHI v. SANTIAGO O. TAÑADA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27874 January 30, 1982 - INSURANCE COMMISSIONER v. GLOBE ASSURANCE CO., INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-29360 January 30, 1982 - JOSE ZULUETA v. HERMINIO MARIANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-31396 January 30, 1982 - PHILIPPINE AIR LINES EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, ET AL. v. PHILIPPINE AIR LINES, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-32041 January 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ADOLFO H. AGUILAR

  • G.R. No. L-32160 January 30, 1982 - DOMICIANO A. AGUAS v. CONRADO G. DE LEON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-33152 January 30, 1982 - LUIS PARCO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-34251 January 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FEDERICO M. BASAS

  • G.R. Nos. L-36060-65 January 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JAKARIA GANDAO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-36377 January 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NOEL AGDA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-36902 January 30, 1982 - LUIS PICHEL v. PRUDENCIO ALONZO

  • G.R. No. L-39187 January 30, 1982 - ANULINA L. VDA. DE BOGACKI v. SANCHO Y. INSERTO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-42791 January 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PORFERIO SOSING

  • G.R. No. L-46362 January 30, 1982 - PEDRITA S. MARTE v. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. L-47309 January 30, 1982 - BELFAST SURETY AND INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., ET AL. v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-48217 January 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUANITO MABILANGAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-48274 January 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REYNALDO SALAMEDA

  • G.R. No. 50255 January 30, 1982 - ANTONIO CABAÑERO v. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-50449 January 30, 1982 - FILINVEST CREDIT CORP. v. PHILIPPINE ACETYLENE, CO., INC.

  • G.R. Nos. L-50581-50617 January 30, 1982 - RUFINO V. NUÑEZ v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-50882 January 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARTHUR MENDOZA

  • G.R. No. L-50985 January 30, 1982 - KAPISANAN NG MANGGAGAWA SA CAMARA SHOES, ET AL. v. CAMARA SHOES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 52197 January 30, 1982 - RAFAEL M. SUMADCHAT v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 52254 January 30, 1982 - MERCEDES ABADIANO v. GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 53586 January 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PONCIANO LUMAGUE, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-54131 January 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEONARDO GIBERSON, JR.

  • G.R. No. L-54221 January 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEONARDO ESTACIO

  • G.R. No. L-54298 January 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GILBERT B. SESE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-55178 January 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIO DEL MUNDO

  • G.R. No. L-55753 January 30, 1982 - EMPRESS TELEVISION, INC. v. CONCEPCION B. BUENCAMINO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-56284 January 30, 1982 - RAMON ESTELLA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-56361 January 30, 1982 - ARNULFO ABAYA v. CASTOR Z. CONCEPCION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-56492 January 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GIBSON A. ARAULA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-57103 January 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO A. ORCULLO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-57392 January 30, 1982 - ELISEO A. MATURAN v. GIBSON A. ARAULA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 57416 January 30, 1982 - BAYANI DATOR v. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-58058 January 30, 1982 - SANTIAGO MENDOZA, ET AL. v. NATIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 58520 January 30, 1982 - PEDRO HERMOGENES v. AUGUSTO M. AMORES

  • G.R. No. L-59161 January 30, 1982 - MELQUIADES GUTIERREZ v. ENRIQUE H.R. ABILA, ET AL.