ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[G.R. No. 146659. March 14, 2001]

GSIS vs. PERALTA

THIRD DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated MAR 14 2001 .

G.R. No. 146659(Government Service Insurance System vs. Ernesto Peralta, represented by his wife, Luz Peralta.)

Petitioner Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) assails the decision of the Court of Appeals reversing petitioner's and the Employees Compensation Commission's denial of private respondent's claim for compensation benefits, declaring thusly:

WHEREFORE, the appealed Decision is REVERSED and SET ASIDE and a new one entered, ordering the GSIS to compensate the wife of the deceased with: (1) his full monthly income benefits for all compensable months of disability (Sec. 2, Rule XI, amended Rules on Employees Compensation) from April 1995 until March 1996, and (2) funeral benefit of three thousand pesos (P3,000.00) [Art. 194 par. D. ibid]

Private respondent, now the deceased Ernesto Peralta, started his government service on August 16, 1962; he worked as a Jail Guard at the Provincial Jail Office of the Province of Rizal. Twice promoted, he was occupying the position of Jail Guard II when he retired from the service on December 31, 1995.

At the age of 56, Ernesto together with other jail guards were required to undergo a one month Jail Guard Training Orientation which included physical training, conducted at the jail Service Training Center at Fort Bonifacio, Makati City.

During and after the training Ernesto experienced body pains particularly on the lower back. This was aggravated when he was assigned after the training at the jail kitchen, as Mess Officer of prisoners' food. The unbearable pain forced Ernesto to seek medical assistance and he was confined from January 25, 1995 to January 27, 1995 at the Makati Hospital where he underwent surgical operation for Herniorraphy on January 26, 1995. On April 3, 1995 he was again confined in said hospital because of severe leg and lower back pain, and his treatment lasted until May 28, 1995. On April 12, 1995 a Computer Tomography Scan resulted with the following findings:

CT scan of the lumbosacral spine demonstrates a large well-defined nodular heterogeneous tumor mass lesion in the left paraspinal region extending into the intraspinal canal at about L1 level.

There is destruction of the corresponding left vertebral body, pedicle as well as the lamins of L1 vertebra.

The rest of the lumbar vertebrae are essentially normal.

The ligamnetum flavum is not hypertrophic.

There is no evident disc hemiation.

Small ventral disc bulges are noted at the L5-S1 and L4-LS interspaces.

There are no compression deformities nor spondylolisthesis.

IMPRESSION: Tumor mass lesion in the left paraspinal region with extension into the intraspinal canal and secondary lytic destruction of the left vertebral body, left pedicle and lamina L1 level.

Metastasis is the primary consideration.

No evident disc herniation.

On June 8, 1995, Ernesto filed a claim for compensation benefits which the GSIS denied, ruling that Poorly Undifferentiated Concern, Lumbo Sacral is not listed as an occupational disease under Annex A of Presidential Decree 626. The denial was affirmed by the ECC. Private respondent was already dead when the decision was received by his widow on March 25, 1996 who brought the matter before the Court of Appeals which rendered the above assailed decision.

The Court of Appeals ratiocinated that in denying respondent's claim, petitioner failed to consider that the punishing Fort Bonifacio training aggravated Ernesto's osteoarthritis. His Computer Tomography Scan showed a destruction of the corresponding left vertebral body, and such affected his spinal cord as a result of which respondent would naturally experience severe back pains, as he did during and after the training. The reason of such findings in the tomography scan can be reasonably concluded to have been caused by the strenuous physical training course undergone by the deceased as was indiscriminately required of the jail guards without regard to their individual ages, health, and condition. Hernia, on the other hand, which is included in the list of occupational diseases (annex "A" amended rules on Employees Compensation), is one likely to be suffered under severe and strenuous conditions as that experienced by the deceased in that training course.

Petitioner's assertion, that the Court of Appeals erred when it reversed, would require this Court to examine and review of facts and evidence as found and appreciated, respectively, by the Court of Appeals. Time and again the Court has ruled that the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court is limited to reviewing only errors of law, not of fact, unless the factual findings complained of are devoid of support by the evidence on record or the assailed judgment is based on misapprehension of facts (Congregation of the Religious of the Virgin Mary vs. Court of Appeals, 291 SCRA 385 [1998]). This task, petitioner has failed to discharge.

WHEREFORE, petition is hereby denied.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) JULIETA Y. CARREON

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE