Professional Documents
Culture Documents
BOOK IV
1. GSIS v CA
FACTS:
On March 6, 1974, Abraham Cate joined the military service as a rifleman of the
Philippine Navy and was subsequently designated as Action Clerk. In 1986, he
was transferred to the Philippine Constabulary with the rank of Technical
Sergeant and was later promoted to Master Sergeant. In 1991, he was absorbed
in the PNP with the rank of SPO4. Abraham then complained of a mass on his
left cheek which gradually increased in size. Biopsy showed that he was suffering
from Osteoblastic Osteosarcoma. He was admitted at the PGH payward and
underwent Total Maxillectomy with Orbital Exentration which removed the mass
on his left cheek. In 1994, another biopsy revealed the recurrence of the ailment.
In the meantime, the origin and cause of Osteosarcoma are unknown. Abrahan
was compulsorily retired from the PNP. Abraham filed a claim for income benefits
with the GSIS but was denied on the ground that Osteosarcoma is not
considered as an occupational disease under PD 626 and there is no showing
that his duties as SPO4 had increased the risk of contracting the said ailment. In
1995, Abraham died and was survived by his wife Dorothy Cate and 2 children.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Abrahams ailment is compensable
HELD:
Yes. The present law on the compensation allows certain diseases to be
compensable if it is sufficiently proven that the risk of contracting is increased by
the working conditions. It therefore, now allows compensation subject to
requirement of proving by sufficient evidence that the risk of contracting the
ailment is increased by the working conditions. In the present case, the
requirement is impossible to comply with, given the present state of scientific
knowledge. The obligation to present such as an impossible evidence must,
therefore, be deemed void. Respondent is entitled to compensation consistent
with the social legislations intended beneficial purpose.
2. SALOME V ECC
FACTS:
Petitioner was employed as sewer by the Paul Geneve Entertainment
Corporation. She was later promoted as the officer in charge and the over-all
custodian in the Sewing Department. Sometime in 1996. Petitioner started to feel
chest pains until she filed a leave of absence from work as the chest pains
became unbearable. Medical examination results show that petitioner was
suffering from Atherosclerotic heart disease, Atrial Fibrillation, Cardiac Arrythmia.
Upon recommendation of her doctor, petitioner resigned from her work. Petitioner
later filed a disability claim with the SSS which was denied.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Petitioners illness is compensable, as work related, and whether
there was sufficient evidence of compensability
HELD:
Yes. Under the Labor Code, for a sickness and the resulting disability to be
compensable, the said sickness must be an occupational disease listed under
Annex A of the said rules, otherwise, the claimant concerned must prove that the
risk contracting the disease is increased by the working condition. In the present
case, petitioner has shown by uncontroverted evidence that in the course of her
employment, due to work related stress, she suffered from severe chest pains
which caused her to take a rest, per physicians advice and to resign from her
employment. Cardiovascular diseases are listed as compensable occupational
diseases, hence no further proof of causal relation between the disease and
claimants work is necessary.
4. DEBAUDIN V SSS
FACTS:
Petitioner is a seaman by profession and joined the United Philippine Lines in
1975 and was separated from his employment in 1992 at the age of 62. During
his 18 years of service, he boarded various foreign ocean going vessels while
performing his duties and responsibilities that included cleaning chemical spill oil
on deck, slat dislodging, and spraying naptha chemical and washing dirt and
rusts inside the tank. Petitioners medical records show that his illness started in
1992 when he experiences episodes of bilateral burring of vision. Petitioner was
diagnosed with advanced glaucoma which recurred even after his separation
from service. His eye disease was finally diagnosed as chronic open angle
glaucoma. Petitioner then filed with the SSS a claim for compensation benefits
under PD 626. Claim was denied ont he ground that there is no causal
relationship between the illness and his job as a seaman.
ISSUE:
Whether the work of petitioner as a seaman contributed even in a small degree in
or had increased the risk of contracting his chronic open angle glaucoma
HELD:
No. The court ruled that petitioners disease is not listed as an occupational
disease hence, he has the burden of proving by substantial evidence, or such
relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a
conclusion, that the nature of his employment or working conditions increased
the risk of contracting the ailment or that its progression was brought about
thereby. Petitioner failed to adduce any proof of a reasonable connection
between the work as a seaman and the illness. Petitioner presented no
competent medical history, records of physicians report to objectively
substantiate the claim that such reasonable nexus exists.
5. AUSTRIA V CA
FACTS:
Petitioner Austria was employed as bag piler at Central Azucarera de Tarlac. In
1994, petitioner began to feel severe back pain. The x-ray photographs revealed
that he has osteoarthritis of the lumbar spine. Petitioner filed with the SSS a
claim for compensation benefits, which was granted. Petitioner was awarded
permanent partial disability benefits. Petitioner thereafter requested the SSS for
conversion of his permanent partial disability benefit to permanent total disability
benefit. The SSS denied the request. On appeal, the ECC affirmed the decision
of the SSS holding that petitioner has already availed of the maximum benefits to
which he is entitled on account of his osteoarthritis. The Court of Appeals
likewise dismissed petitioners claim. Hence, this petition.
ISSUE:
Whether or not petitioners request for conversion of his permanent partial
disability to permanent total disability must be allowed.
HELD:
Yes. The test of whether or not an employee suffers from permanent total
disability is a showing of the capacity of the employee to continue performing his
work notwithstanding the disability he incurred. Thus, if by reason of the injury or
sickness he sustained, the employee is unable to perform his customary job for
more than 120 days and he does not come within the coverage of Rule X of the
Amended Rules on Employees Compensability, then the said employee
undoubtedly suffers from permanent total disability, regardless of whether or not
he loses the use of any part of his body. Disablement does not mean an absolute
helplessness but rather incapacity to perform gainful work which is expected to
be permanent. What is necessary is that the injury must be such that he cannot
pursue his usual work and earn therefrom. In the case at bar, the duties of
petitioner require him to carry heavy loads of refined sugar and to perform other
manual work. Since his work obviously taxes so much on his back, his illness
which affects his lumbar spine renders him incapable of doing his usual work as
bag piler. Hence, his disability to perform his regular duties may be considered
total and permanent.
6. GATUS V SSS
FACTS:
Gatus worked at the Central Azucarera de Tarlac beginning on January 1, 1972.
He was a covered member of the SSS. He optionally retired from Central
Azucarera de Tarlac upon reaching 30 years of service on January 31, 2002, at
the age of 62 years.By the time of his retirement, he held the position of Tender
assigned
at
the
Distillery
Cooling
Tower.
Sometime in 1995, he was diagnosed to be suffering from Coronary Artery
Disease (CAD): Triple Vessel and Unstable Angina. His medical records showed
him
to
be
hypertensive
for
10
years
and
a
smoker.
On account of his CAD, he was given by the SSS the following EC/SSS
Permanent Partial Disability (PPD) benefits: (a) 8 monthly pensions effective
September 1, 1994 and (b) 4 monthly pensions effective January 3, 1997. He
became an
SSS retirement pensioner on February 1, 2002.
Sometime in 2003, an SSS audit revealed the need to recover the EC benefits
already paid to him on the ground that his CAD, being attributed to his chronic
smoking, was not work-related. He was notified thereof through a letter dated
July
31,
2003.
Convinced that he was entitled to the benefits, he assailed the decision but the
SSS maintained its position. The SSS also denied his motion for reconsideration.
Gatus then elevated the case to the Employers Compensation Commission,
which held that although his CAD was a cardiovascular disease listed as an
occupational disease under Annex A of the Implementing Rules on Employees
Compensation, nothing on record established the presence of the qualifying
circumstances for responsibility; that it was incumbent upon him to prove that the
nature of his previous employment and the conditions prevailing therein had
increased the risk of contracting his CAD; and that he had failed to prove this
requisite.
The Court of Appeals also agreed with the Employees Compensation
Commission despite petitioner Gatus's allegation that his ailment was caused by
his exposure to harmful fuel and smoke emissions due to the presence of
methane gas from a nearby biological waste as well as a railway terminal where
diesel-fed locomotive engines spewed black smoke. This allegation, according to
the findings, was not backed up by any scientific and factual evidence.
ISSUE:
Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in affirming
the finding of the ECC that petitioners ailment is not compensable under
Presidential
Decree
No.
626,
as
amended.
HELD:
LABOR
The
LAW
petition
-
Social
is
Security
unmeritorious.
System
Benefits
The
employee's
work
must
involve
the
risks
described
herein;
he was entitled to the benefits he applied for. The quantum of proof needed in
this case is substantial evidence, which means such relevant evidence as a
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Gatus did
not discharge the burden of proof imposed under the Labor Code to show that
his ailment was work-related. While he might have been exposed to various
smoke emissions at work for 30 years, he did not submit satisfactory evidence
proving that the exposure had contributed to the development of his disease or
had increased the risk of contracting the illness. Neither did he show that the
disease had progressed due to conditions in his job as a factory worker. In fact,
he did not present any physicians report in order to substantiate his allegation
that the working conditions had increased the risk of acquiring the cardiovascular
disease.
working condition largely led to the progression of the ailment because his
functions entailed constant exposure to hazardous or toxic chemicals such as
carbon disulfate, carbon monoxide, or manganese. Where it was established
that the claimants ailment occurred during and in the course of his employment,
it must be presumed that the nature of the claimants employment is the cause of
the disease.
Even assuming that Parkinsons disease is not compensable, there is no
question that Essential Hypertension is compensable illness. A doctors
certification as to the nature of the claimants disability normally deserves full
credence.
Given the nature of his assigned job and the printing business, with its tight
deadlines entailing large amounts of rush work, indeed the emotional and
physical stress of respondents work at the printing press caused, and then
exacerbated, his hypertension.
The Court applied the rules on claiming benefits liberally as to not result in the
denial of assistance to those in need and qualified therefor. Workers, whose
capabilities have been diminished, if not completely impaired, as a consequence
of their service, ought to be given benefits they deserve under the law.
Compassion for them is not a dole-out, but a right.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the CA erred in in applying the provisions of the Labor Code
instead of the provisions of the POEA contract in determining Lobustas disability,
and in ruling that the mere lapse of 120 days entitles Lobusta to total and
permanent disability benefits.
HELD:
No. CA Decision Affirmed.
Labor Law
Standard terms of the POEA Standard Employment Contract agreed upon are
intended to be read and understood in accordance with Philippine laws,
particularly, Articles 191 to 193 of the Labor Code, as amended, and the
applicable implementing rules and regulations in case of any dispute, claim or
grievance.
Petitioners are mistaken that it is only the POEA Standard Employment Contract
that must be considered in determining Lobusta's disability. In Palisoc v. Easways
Marine, Inc., we said that whether the Labor Codes provision on permanent total
disability applies to seafarers is already a settled matter.
In Palisoc, we cited the earlier case of Remigio v. National Labor Relations
Commission where we said (1) that the standard employment contract for
seafarers was formulated by the POEA pursuant to its mandate under Executive
Order No. 247 "to secure the best terms and conditions of employment of Filipino
contract workers and ensure compliance therewith," and "to promote and protect
the well-being of Filipino workers overseas"; (2) that Section 29 of the 1996
POEA Standard Employment Contract itself provides that all rights and
obligations of the parties to the contract, including the annexes thereof, shall be
governed by the laws of the Republic of the Philippines, international
conventions, treaties and covenants where the Philippines is a signatory; and (3)
that even without this provision, a contract of labor is so impressed with public
interest that the Civil Code expressly subjects it to the special laws on labor
unions, collective bargaining, strikes and lockouts, closed shop, wages, working
conditions, hours of labor and similar subjects.
Temporary total disability only becomes permanent when so declared by the
company physician within the periods he is allowed to do so, or upon the
expiration of the maximum 240-day medical treatment period without a
declaration of either fitness to work or the existence of a permanent disability.
To be sure, there is one Labor Code concept of permanent total disability, as
stated in Article 192(c)(1) of the Labor Code, as amended, and the ECC Rules.
We also note that the first paragraph of Section 20(B)(3) of the 2000 POEA
Standard Employment Contract was lifted verbatim from the first paragraph of
Section 20(B)(3) of the 1996 POEA Standard Employment Contract, to wit:
Upon sign-off from the vessel for medical treatment, the seafarer is entitled to
sickness allowance equivalent to his basic wage until he is declared fit to work or
the degree of permanent disability has been assessed by the companydesignated physician, but in no case shall this period exceed one hundred twenty
(120) days.
Applying the foregoing considerations, we agree with the CA that Lobusta
suffered permanent total disability. On this point, the NLRC ruling was not in
accord with law and jurisprudence.
Upon repatriation, Lobusta was first examined by the Pulmonologist and
Orthopedic Surgeon on May 22, 1998. The maximum 240-day (8-month)
medical-treatment period expired, but no declaration was made that Lobusta is fit
to work. Nor was there a declaration of the existence of Lobustas permanent
disability. On February 16, 1999, Lobusta was still prescribed medications for his
lumbosacral pain and was advised to return for reevaluation. May 22, 1998 to
February 16, 1999 is 264 days or 6 days short of 9 months.
In fact, the CA has found that Lobusta was not able to work again as a seaman
and that his disability is permanent "as he has been unable to work since 14 May
1998 to the present or for more than 120 days." This period is more than eight
years, counted until the CA decided the case in August 2006. On the CA ruling
that Lobustas disability is permanent since he was unable to work "for more than
120 days," we have clarified in Vergara that this "temporary total disability period
may be extended up to a maximum of 240 days."
Thus, we affirm the award to Lobusta of US$60,000 as permanent total disability
benefits, the maximum award under Section 30 and 30-A of the 1996 POEA
Standard Employment Contract. We also affirm the award of US$2,060 as
sickness allowance which is not contested and appears to have been accepted
by the parties.
DENIED.
Upon sign-off from the vessel for medical treatment, the seafarer is
entitled to sickness allowance equivalent to his basic wage until he is
declared fit to work or the degree of permanent disability has been
assessed by the company-designated physician but in no case shall this
period exceed one hundred twenty (120) days.
For this purpose, the seafarer shall submit himself to a post-employment
medical examination by a company-designated physician within three
working days upon his return except when he is physically incapacitated
to do so, in which case, a written notice to the agency within the same
period is deemed as compliance. Failure of the seafarer to comply with
the mandatory reporting requirement shall result in his forfeiture of the
right to claim the above benefits.
If a doctor appointed by the seafarer disagrees with the assessment, a
third doctor may be agreed jointly between the Employer and the seafarer.
The third doctors decision shall be final and binding on both parties.
Clearly, there was a breach by Dr. Lim of his obligation as the companydesignated physician. Although Libang repeatedly argued that Dr. Lim failed to
give an assessment of his illness, herein respondents and Dr. Lim failed to
explain and justify such failure.
As against an incomplete evaluation by Dr. Lim, the medical certificate issued by
Dr. Vicaldo included a determination of the disability grade that applied to
Libangs condition. Libang was diagnosed to have both Hypertensive
Cardiovascular Disease and Diabetes Mellitus with an Impediment Grade VI. He
was declared to be unfit to resume to work as a seafarer in any capacity. The
alleged severity of Libangs illness could be linked with Dr. Lims statement that
Libangs hypertension was severe and that he ha[d] been under the care of a
cardiologist, neurologist and endocrinologist. Dr. Lim had not declared Libang to
be fit to work or covered by any disability grade. It is then clear that the finding of
Dr. Vicaldo did not contradict any opposing view from Dr. Lim on disability grade
or fitness.
In its Position Paper,16 InterOrient negated Victors claim for disability benefits
averring that the same has no factual, contractual or legal basis. It argued that
his discharge from the vessel was not occasioned by any illness or injury
sustained or contracted on board but was simply due to completion or expiration
of his contract; that he voluntarily executed a Receipt and Release document
wherein he acknowledged that he had not contracted any illness while on board;
that he was released in good and perfect health; and that there is no clear
evidence that shows his entitlement to the benefits or damages being claimed.
The Labor Arbiter held that InterOrient cannot be held liable for Victors claims
since he must have contracted his ailment after repatriation and not while aboard
the vessel, not to mention that the contract between the parties had already
expired, which was affirmed by the NLRC.
Applying Section 32-A of the POEA Contract, the CA declared Victors illness,
pulmonary tuberculosis, included in the list of occupational diseases. It found
that Victor was overworked and over-fatigued as a result of the long hours of
work required by his duties and that he was exposed to daily rapid variations in
temperature. Aside from physical strain, he was also subjected to emotional
stress brought about by the separation from his family. The CA concluded that
with his daily exposure to these factors which could weaken his immune system,
it was not impossible that he contracted tuberculosis during the course of his
employment.
ISSUE:
Whether or not InterOrient can be held accountable for Victors disease even if
the same was diagnosed 11 months after he disembarked from the vessel upon
the termination of his employment contract.
HELD:
No. It must be stressed that his repatriation was not due to any medical reasons
but because his employment contract had already expired. Other than his selfserving allegation that he experienced pain while on board, he was not able to
substantiate the same. There was no showing that he reported his injury to his
officers while on board the vessel; neither did he prove that he sought medical
attention but was refused. Likewise, other than his bare and self-serving
assertion that he informed InterOrient about his pain, he presented no evidence
or tangible proof that he indeed requested for medical attention, much more that
he was rebuffed.
On the contrary, the records show that when he reported to InterOrient
immediately after his repatriation, he signed a Receipt and Release stating that
he has not contracted or suffered any illness or injury from work and that he was
discharged in good and perfect health. Moreover, we are baffled why, if indeed
Victor needed medical services, he opted to consult several doctors other than
the company-designated physician. He offered no explanation for this.
evaluate and weigh the merits of the medical reports of the company-designated
doctor and the seafarers doctor. The Labor Arbiter did not give probative value to
the medical report issued by petitioners doctor primarily because there was no
evidence of tests and examinations conducted to support his medical report. On
the other hand, the NLRC ruled that"[t]he findings of [petitioners] doctor, who
gave him Grade 1 Disability rating is more appropriate and applicable to the
injury suffered by [petitioner]." The Court of Appeals gave more credence to the
findings of the company-designated doctor, which were supported by multiple
tests and examinations on petitioner, compared to the medical report of
petitioners doctor which was not supported by adequate tests and examinations.
Petitioner argues that since his treatment lasted for more than 120 days, then his
disability is deemed total and permanent. Petitioners contention is not entirely
correct. Although Article 192(c)(1), Chapter VI, Title II, Book IV of the Labor
Code, as amended, states that a disability which lasts continuously for more than
120 days is deemed total and permanent, the law makes a qualification, thus:
1 provided for in Rule X of these Rules. (Emphasis supplied)
The provision adverted to is Section 2, Rule X of the Implementing Rules of Title
II, Book IV of the Labor Code, as amended, which states:
SECTION 2. Period of entitlement. (a) The income benefit shall be
paid beginning on the first day of such disability. If caused by an
injury or sickness it shall not be paidlonger than 120 consecutive
days except where such injury or sickness still requires medical
attendance beyond 120 days but not toexceed 240 days from onset
of disability in which case benefit for temporary total disability shall
be paid. However, the System may declare the total and permanent
status at any time after 120 days of continuous temporary total
disability as may be warranted bythe degree of actual loss or
impairment of physical or mentalfunctions as determined by the
System.
Just because the seafarer is unable to perform his job and is undergoing medical
treatment for more than 120 days does not automatically entitle the seafarer to
total and permanent disability compensation.26 In this case, petitioner's medical
treatment lasted more than 120 days but less than 240 days, after which the
company-designated doctor gave petitioner a final disability grading under the
POEA schedule of disabilities of "grade 11 - complete immobility of an ankle joint
in normal position." Thus, before the maximum 240-day medical treatment period
expired, petitioner was issued a final disability grade 11 which is merely
equivalent to a permanent partial disability, since under Section 32 of the POEASEC, only those classified under grade 1 are considered total and permanent
disability. Clearly, petitioner is only entitled to permanent partial disability
compensation, since his condition cannot be considered as permanent total
disability
lack of jurisdiction.
ISSUE:
HELD:
We affirm the finding of a prima facie case of petitioners failure to remit the SSS
contributions and loan amortization of respondents for a period of approximately
two (2) years, in 2003 and 2004. In October 2004, after respondents were
successively dismissed from employment by Vicmar in August 2004, they
separately filed for SSS benefits, relating to sickness and procurement of a loan,
which were both denied outright for lack of contributions or payments twelve
months (12) prior to the semester of confinement and failure to pay a prior loan.
After respondents filed criminal complaints against petitioners, the latter then
remitted their SSS wage deductions and loan payments to the SSS.
The factual milieu obtaining herein does not denote a simple delay in payment.
Again, petitioners initially failed to remit the SSS contributions and payments of
respondents such that respondents were denied benefits under the SS Law
which they wanted to avail of. It was only under threat of criminal liability that
petitioners subsequently remitted what they had long deducted from the wages of
respondents.
SEC. 22. Remittance of Contributions. (a) The contribution imposed in the
preceding section shall be remitted to the SSS within the first ten (10) days of
each calendar month following the month for which they are applicable or within
suchtime as the Commission may prescribe. Every employer required to deduct
and to remit such contributions shall be liable for their payment and if any
contribution is not paid to the SSS as herein prescribed, he shall pay besides the
contribution a penalty thereon of three percent (3%) per month from the date the
contribution falls due until paid. If deemed expedient and advisable by the
Commission, the collection and remittance of contributions shall be made
quarterly or semi annually in advance, the contributions payable by the
employees to be advanced by their respective employers: Provided, That upon
separation of an employee, any contribution so paid in advance but not due shall
be credited or refunded to his employer.
CA
It reinstated LAs decision. It stressed that permanent total disability is not
determined by gradings but by the number of days the disability has lasted. It
explained that under Article 192 of the Labor Code, a disability shall be deemed
total and permanent if the temporary disability has lasted for more than a
continuous period of 120 days.
SC
Mere lapse of the 120 day period does not warrant payment of permanent total
disability benefits. He is entitled only to the Grade 10 disability rating certified by
Drs. De Guzman and Banaga equivalent to US$10,075.01 pursuant to the
POEASEC which provides that "in case of permanent total or partial disability of
the seafarer caused by injury or illness the seafarer shall be compensated in
accordance with the schedule of benefits enumerated in the Contract.
incapacitated to work for more than 120 days, or even 240 days which is the
maximum allowable period of treatment pursuant to Rule X, Section 2 of the
Amended Rules on Employees Compensation. A temporary total disability only
becomes permanent when so declared by the company designated physician
within the period allowed, or upon expiration of the maximum 240day medical
treatment period in case of absence of a declaration of fitness or permanent
disability.
SC
Yes, Under Art. 192(c)(1) of the Labor Code and Rule X, Section 2 of the
Amended Rules on Employees Compensation, temporary total disability shall be
deemed permanent total disability when so declared by the company designated
physician within the period allowed, or upon expiration of the maximum 240day
medical treatment period in case of absence of a declaration of fitness or
permanent disability. As held in Krestel Shipping Co., Inc. v. Munar the company
designated physician is expected to arrive at a definite assessment of the
seafarers fitness to work or permanent disability within the period of 120 or 240
days. That should he fail to do so and the seafarers medical condition remains
unresolved, the seafarer shall be deemed totally or permanently disabled.
First, records bear out circumstances which all lead to the reasonable
conclusion that respondent was responsible for the flooding and burning
incidents.
In this case, the LA and NLRC gave credence to the corroborating testimonies of
the crewmen pointing to respondent as the person who deliberately caused the
flooding incident. In particular, [complainant] was seen alone in the vicinity of the
port side seachest which cover was found to have been intentionally removed
and thereby caused the flooding. He was also seen disappearing up to the boiler
deck just when the bilge level alarm sounded with patches of water left on the
floor plates and on the stairways. Respondent neither denied nor proffered any
explanation on the foregoing claims especially when all of his fellow engine room
staff, except him, responded to the alarm and helped pump out the water in the
engine room. As to the burning, [complainant] failed to successfully controvert
Giles claim that he saw the former go to the paint room, soak his hands in a can
full of thinner and proceed to the incinerator door where he was set ablaze. In
fact, [complainants] burnt overalls conform to the aforesaid claim as it had green
paint on the arms and body and smelled strongly of thinner, while the open paint
tin can that was found in the vicinity contained solvent which had the same green
color found on the overalls.
Second, [complainants] version that the burning was caused by an accident is
hardly supported by the evidence on record. The purported explosion in the
incinerator was belied by Gile who also claimed that there was no fire in the
incinerator room at the time respondent got burned. This was corroborated by
Bejada who testified having ordered an ordinary seaman that was burning deck
waste in the incinerator early that day to extinguish the fire with water and close
up the incinerator door because of bad weather conditions. Accordingly, an
inspection of the incinerator after the incident showed that there were unburnt
cardboard cartons found inside with no sign of explosion and the steel plates
surrounding it were cool to the touch. Further, as aptly discerned by the LA, if
there was really an incinerator explosion, then respondents injury would have
been more serious.
[Complainant] debunked Giles claim by merely asserting in his Answer and
Rejoinder before the POEA that the latter could not have been in the room at the
time he got burned as he was not the first person to rescue him and concluded
that he could not have soaked his hands in a can full of thinner considering the
extent of damage caused to his hands. This argument is riddled with serious
flaws: Gile could have been the second man in, and still personally know the
matters he has alleged. Also, that [complainant] soaked his hands in thinner is
not denied by the fact that the greatest damage was not caused to it since the
fire could have started at some part of his body considering that his overalls also
had flammable chemicals. Reason also dictates that he could have extinguished
the fire on his hands sooner than the other parts of his body. In any event, the
medical records of [complainant], particularly the report issued by the Prince of
Wales Hospital Burns Surgery, show that he suffered from deep burn area that
was distributed over his left upper limb, right hand, left flank and both thighs. To
assert that [complainants] hands should have suffered the greatest damage is
plainly argumentative and records are bereft of showing as to the exact degree of
burn suffered for each part.
To add, Bejadas statement that [complainants] burnt overalls had patches of
green paint on the arms and body and strongly smelled of thinner conforms with
Giles claim that he soaked his hands in a can of thinner before approaching the
incinerator (thinner may be found in a paint room). Such fact further fortifies
[defendants] assertion that his injury was self-inflicted as a prudent man would
not dispose of garbage in the incinerator under such condition.
And if only to placate other doubts, the CAs finding that some chemicals
splashed [on complainants] body should not automatically mean that the
splashing was caused by pure accident. It is equally reasonable to conclude that
the splashing as may be inferred from both the LAs and NLRCs findings
was a by-product of [complainants] botched sabotage attempt.
Third, [defendants] theory that [complainants] burns were self-inflicted gains
credence through the existence of motive. At this juncture, the Court finds it
important to examine the existence of motive in this case since no one actually
saw what transpired in the incinerator room. To this end, the confluence of the
circumstances antecedent to the burning should be examined in conjunction with
the existing accounts of the crew members. That said, both the LA and the NLRC
made a factual finding that prior to the burning incident, [complainant] was caught
pilfering the vessels supplies for which he was told that he was to be relieved
from his duties. This adequately supports the reasonable conclusion that
[complainant] may have harbored a grudge against the captain and the chief
steward who denied giving him the questioned items. At the very least, it was
natural for him to brood over feelings of resentment considering his impending
dismissal. These incidents shore up the theory that he was motivated to commit
an act of sabotage which, however, backfired into his own burning.
injury since he became already fit to work again as a seaman. He even admitted
in his position paper that he was declared fit to work. He was also declared fit for
sea service after his pre-employment medical examination when he sought
reemployment with petitioners. The medical certificate declaring Sibug fit for sea
service even bears his signature. And he was able to work again in the same
capacity as waste handler in Ryndam.
On this point, the Labor Arbiters ruling is amply supported by substantial
evidence. On the other hand, the CA erred in ruling that Sibug is entitled to
permanent and total disability benefit for the injury he suffered at the Volendam.
The facts clearly show that he is not.
As regards his Ryndam injury, we agree with the CA that Sibug is entitled to
permanent and total disability benefit amounting to US$60,000. Petitioners, the
Labor Arbiter and the NLRC erred on this point. In Millan v. Wallem Maritime
Services, Inc., we listed the following circumstances when a seaman may be
allowed to pursue an action for permanent and total disability benefits:
(a) The company-designated physician failed to issue a declaration as to his
fitness to engage in sea duty or disability even after the lapse of the 120-day
period and there is no indication that further medical treatment would address his
temporary total disability, hence, justify an extension of the period to 240 days;
(b) 240 days had lapsed without any certification issued by the companydesignated physician;
(c) The company-designated physician declared that he is fit for sea duty within
the 120-day or 240-day period, as the case may be, but his physician of choice
and the doctor chosen under Section 20-B(3) of the POEA-SEC are of a contrary
opinion;
(d) The company-designated physician acknowledged that he is partially
permanently disabled but other doctors who he consulted, on his own and jointly
with his employer, believed that his disability is not only permanent but total as
well;
(e) The company-designated physician recognized that he is totally and
permanently disabled but there is a dispute on the disability grading;
(f) The company-designated physician determined that his medical condition is
not compensable or work-related under the POEA-SEC but his doctor-of-choice
and the third doctor selected under Section 20-B(3) of the POEA-SEC found
otherwise and declared him unfit to work;
(g) The company-designated physician declared him totally and permanently
disabled but the employer refuses to pay him the corresponding benefits; and
On August 6, 1998 Chin filed a claim for disability with Pandiman Phils., Inc.
which is the local agent of P & I Club of which Magsaysay Maritime is a member.
Pandiman offered US$30,000.00 as disability compensation which Chin
accepted on August 6, 1998. He then executed a Release and Quitclaim in favor
of Magsaysay Maritime.
On September 29, 1998 Chin filed a complaint with the National Labor Relations
Commission (NLRC), claiming underpayment of disability benefits and attorneys
fees. He later amended his complaint to include claims for damages.
The Labor Arbiter dismissed Chins complaint for lack of merit. The NLRC
affirmed the dismissal on May 17, 2001. On appeal, however, the Court of
Appeals (CA) reversed the dismissal and ruled that Chin was entitled to
permanent total disability benefit of US$60,000.00. The CA remanded the case to
the Labor Arbiter for determination of the other monetary claims of Chin. This
prompted petitioner Magsaysay to come before this court on a petition for review
on certiorari. The Court denied the petition, however, in a Resolution dated
September 8, 2003. This Resolution became final and executory on February 23,
2004.
Petitioner Magsaysay paid the deficiency award of US$30,000.00 in full and final
settlement of Chins disability compensation claim. On February 26, 2007,
however, the Labor Arbiter rendered a Decision ordering it to pay Chin: a)
P19,279.75 as reimbursement for medical expenses; b) US$147,026.43 as loss
of future wages; c) P200,000.00 as moral damages; d) P75,000.00 as exemplary
damages; and e) 10% of the total award as attorneys fees.
The NLRC modified the Labor Arbiters Decision by deleting the awards of loss of
future wages and moral and exemplary damages for lack of factual and legal
bases. On appeal, the CA reversed the NLRCs Decision and ordered the
reinstatement of the Labor Arbiters Decision, hence, this petition.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the CA erred in affirming the Labor Arbiters award of loss of future
earnings on top of his disability benefits as well as awards of moral and
exemplary damages and attorneys fees.
HELD:
Definitely, the Labor Arbiters award of loss of earning is unwarranted since Chin
had already been given disability compensation for loss of earning capacity. An
additional award for loss of earnings will result in double recovery.
LABOR LAW: permanent total disability; loss of earning capacity
In a catena of cases, the Court has consistently ruled that disability should not be
understood more on its medical significance but on the loss of earning capacity.
pain became more intense as the days progressed, thereby prompting him to
request for repatriation. The request was granted on April 25, 2007.4
On April 27, 2007, Sunga reported to Virjens company-designated physician, Dr.
Nicomedes G. Cruz (Dr. Cruz), for medical examination. The doctor instructed
him to undergo Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) of his lumbosacral spine.
The MRIs results merited the medical advice that Sunga undergo physical
therapy for a period of four (4) months under the supervision of Dr. Cruz. Despite
the therapy, Sunga still experienced episodes of moderate to severe pain on his
right lower extremity and back. He also manifested limited trunk mobility and was
unable to undertake lifting activities.5
On September 7, 2007, Dr. Cruz issued a medical certificate recommending a
Grade 8 disability (Moderate rigidity or 2/3 loss of motion or lifting power of the
trunk) based on the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA)
Standard Employment Contract for Seafarers. Dr. Cruz also issued another
medical certificate recommending a disability grading of 25% (Back pains with
considerable reduction of mobility) in accordance with the parties CBA.6
On the strength of these two certificates, Virjen immediately offered Sunga the
amount of US$ 16,795.00, in accordance with the POEA Standard Employment
Contract for Seafarers, as full settlement for the latters disability benefits.
However, Sunga rejected the offer; he demanded instead that his disability
benefits be based on the disability grading of 25%, pursuant to the provisions of
the parties CBA.7
Virjen denied Sungas demand. Hence, on October 23, 2007, Sunga filed a
complaint before the NLRC against Virjen for disability benefits as stated in the
parties CBA (not under the POEA Standard Employment Contract for Seafarers)
in the amount of US$ 110,000.00. The complaint likewise prayed for attorneys
fees, plus moral and exemplary damages.8
In his position paper, Sunga claimed that the nature of his work involved manual
repairs, which required the lifting and carrying of heavy equipment and materials.
On January 5, 2007, while MT Sunway was docked at Singapore, he alleged that
he, together with two other oilers, was assigned to change MT Sunways globe
valves. Aside from lifting the 200-kilogram globe valve from the lower floor of the
engine room to its installing position, Sunga also has to bear its entire weight
while it was being positioned by the other oilers. Unfortunately, one of the oilers
lost his grip, causing the whole weight of the globe valve to crash on Sunga. At
that instant, he felt his back snap, causing intense pain at his lower back which
persisted for several days. Unable to even stand up just to go to the bathroom,
Sunga was forced to request for repatriation.9
Virjen replied that it had no liability to pay Sunga any disability benefits under the
CBA. Virjen claimed that the CBA requires that for permanent disability to be
control of the person charged with negligence; and (3) the injury suffered must
not have been due to any voluntary action or contribution on the part of the
person injured. Applying in the case at bar, all the requisites for the application of
the rule of res ipsa loquitur are present. First, no worker is going to fall from the
14th floor of a building to the basement while performing work in a construction
site unless someone is negligent. Second, the construction site with all its
paraphernalia and human resources that likely caused the injury is under the
exclusive control and management of petitioner. Third, no contributory
negligence was attributed to the private respondents deceased husband. Thus a
reasonable presumption or inference of petitioners negligence arises.
Further, petitioner apparently misapprehends the procedural effect of the doctrine
for though the petitioner does not dispute the existence of the requisites for the
application of res ipsa loquitur, the petitioner argues that the presumption or
inference that it was negligent did not arise since it proved that it exercised due
care to avoid the accident which befell respondents husband. As stated earlier,
the defendants negligence is presumed or inferred when the plaintiff establishes
the requisites for the application of res ipsa loquitur. Once the plaintiff makes out
a prima facie case of all the elements, the burden then shifts to defendant to
explain. The presumption or inference may be rebutted or overcome by other
evidence and, under appropriate circumstances a disputable presumption, such
as that of due care or innocence, may outweigh the inference. It is not for the
defendant to explain or prove its defense to prevent the presumption or inference
from arising. Evidence by the defendant of say, due care, comes into play only
after the circumstances for the application of the doctrine has been established.
(2) Yes. Though the Court ruled that an injured worker has a choice of
either to recover from the employer the fixed amounts set by the
Workmens Compensation Act or to prosecute an ordinary civil action
against the tortfeasor for higher damages but he cannot pursue both
courses of action simultaneously, the Court recognized that a claimant who
had been paid under the Act could still sue under the Civil Code if it falls
under the exception. The exception is where a claimant who has already
been paid under the Workmens Compensation Act may still sue for
damages under the Civil Code on the basis of supervening facts: or
developments occurring after he opted for the first remedy. The Court ruled
that private respondents case came under the exception because private
respondent was unaware of petitioners negligence when she filed her
claim for death benefits from the State Insurance Fund. Private respondent
filed the civil complaint for damages after she received a copy of the police
investigation report and the Prosecutors Memorandum dismissing the
criminal complaint against petitioners personnel. While stating that there
was no negligence attributable to the respondents in the complaint, the
prosecutor nevertheless noted in the Memorandum that, if at all, the
case is civil in nature.
conditions.
However, the CA ruled that Delfins Complaint was filed well within the
reglementary period of three years from the date the cause of action arose, as
provided for in Section 30 of the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration
Standard Terms and Conditions Governing the Employment of Filipino Seafarers
On-Board Ocean-Going Vessels (POEA SEC). Nonetheless, the CA sustained
the NLRCs pronouncement that petitioners are not entitled to disability
compensation as they failed to establish that Delfins illness was work-related.
ISSUE:
Whether Delfin is entitled to permanent disability benefits and sickness
allowance?
HELD:
The petition lacks merit. Petitioners are not entitled to permanent disability
benefits and sickness allowance.
Section 20 (B) of the 1996 POEA SEC reads as follows: SECTION
20. COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS
x x x x B. COMPENSATION AND BENEFITSFOR INJURY OR
ILLNESS:
The liabilities of the employer when the seafarer suffers injury or
illness during the term of his contract are as follows:
1. The employer shall continue to pay the seafarer his wages during
the time he is on board the vessel;
2. If the injury or illness requires medical and/or dental treatment in a
foreign port, the employer shall be liable for the full cost of such
medical, serious dental, surgical and hospital treatment as well as
board and lodging until the seafarer is declared fit to work or to be
repatriated.
However, if after repatriation, the seafarer still requires medical
attention arising from said injury or illness, he shall be so provided at
cost to the employer until such time he is declared fit or the degree of
his disability has been established by the company-designated
physician.
3. Upon sign-off from the vessel for medical treatment, the seafarer
is entitled to sickness allowance equivalent to his basic wage until he
is declared fit to work or the degree of permanent disability has been
assessed by the company designated physician, but in no case shall
this period exceed one hundred twenty (120) days.
For this purpose, the seafarer shall submit himself to a postemployment medical examination by a company-designated
physician within three working days upon his return except when he
is physically incapacitated to do so, in which case, a written notice to
the agency within the same period is deemed as compliance. Failure
HELD:
No. The rulings of the NLRC and CA is hereby adopted.
Zafra contended that his entitlement to fulldisability benefits was in accord with
the following facts:1. The petitioners did not declare his fitness to work or the
existence of his permanent disability within the 240-day period.
2. The petitioners medical records of his condition have shown to have remained
the same from the time he sustained his injury until August 20, 2010.
3. He remains unemployed from the time of his repatriation and is unable to
perform the same physical activities he was able to do prior to his injury.
There is no dispute that Zafra has been suffering permanent disability because
he has remained unable to resume sea duties after the lapse of the 240-day
period. The dispute is simply whether such permanent disability is partial or total
in character. If the permanent disability is partial, then Zafra shall be entitled to
US$3,590.73 only, the amount corresponding to the assessed Grade 10 disability
pursuant to the schedule provided in the POEA- SEC. If it is total, Zafra shall
receive the maximum US$60,000.00 as compensation.
The Court has reiterated in many cases that total permanent disability means the
disablement of an employee to earn wages in the same kind of work that he was
trained for, or accustomed to perform, or any kind of work which a person of his
mentality and attainments could do. It does not mean absolute helplessness. In
disability compensation, it is not the injury which is compensated, but rather it is
the incapacity to work resulting in the impairment of one's earning capacity.
Partial disability, on the one hand, is when the employee suffers a permanent
partial loss of the use of any part of his body as a result of the injury or sickness.
In Vicente v. Employees Compensation Commission, the Court laid down
the litmus test and distinction between Permanent Total Disability and
Permanent Partial Disability, to wit:
While permanent total disability invariably results in an
employees loss of work or inability to perform his usual work,
permanent partial disability, on the other hand, occurs when an
employee loses the use of any particular anatomical part of his
body which disables him to continue with his former work. Stated
otherwise, the test of whether or not an employee suffers from
permanent total disability is a showing of the capacity of the
employee to continue performing his work notwithstanding the
disability he incurred. Thus, if by reason of the injury or sickness
he sustained, the employee is unable to perform his customary
job for more than 120 or [240] days and he does not come within
the coverage of Rule X of the Amended Rules on Employees
Petitioner filed his claim before the NLRC claiming for Disability Benefits and
damages from respondents.
LA promulgated a decision in favor of petitioner and ordered respondent to pay
his disability benefits. LA found that Dr. Cruzs recommendation that petitioner
was fit to work was without basis as petitioner was still experiencing back pain.
LA defined fit to wor as the employee being in the same condition he was in at
the time he boarded the vessel.
On appeal, NLRC reversed and set aside the decision of the LA. It held that the
power and authority to assess and declare a seafarers disability or report him as
fit to work is vested solely on the company designated-physician and such should
be accorded respect in the absence of bad faith, malice or fraud.
Petitioner filed a petition before the CA. CA affirmed the ruling of the NLRC and
noted that the report of the chosen physician of the petitioner came 7 months
after he was declared fit to work, raising the possibility that his condition has
been caused by other factors.
Hence, the petition.
Issue:
Whether or not petitioner is entitled to disability benefits as recommended by his
chosen physician, contrary to the finding that he was fit to work as earlier
reported by his his employers company-designated physician.
Held:
No. Petitioner failed to meet standard of substantial evidenc to prove his
claim.
In the case of claims for disability benefits, the onus probandi falls on the
seafarer as claimant to establish his claim with the right quantum of evidence. In
the case at bar, petitioner failed to meet the standard of substantial evidence
when he not only failed to present his own physicians report with supporting
tests and examinations which would have objectively established his supposed
permanent disability and he was also unable to substantiate his claim of bad
faith, malice and abuse or manifest partiality on the findings of the companydesignated physician. SC further held, that in cases of disability benefits claims
that in the absence of adequate tests and reasonable findings to support the
same, a doctors assessment should not be taken at face value. Diagnostic tests
and/or procedures as would adequately refute the normal results of those
administered to the petitioner by the company-designated physicians are
necessary for his claims to be sustained.
SSS Law
1. SSC v Azcote
2. SSS v Favilla
3. Mendoza v People
FACTS:
Romarico Mendoza (petitioner) was the company president of Summa Alta Tierra
Industries, Inc. (SATII). During the month of August 1998 to July 1999, the
employees contend that Mendoza failed and/or refuse to remit the SSS Premium
contributions in favor of the employees amounting to P421, 151.09. Such amount
was also the monthly premium contributions of SATII employees to SSS. After
SSS advising Mendoza to pay the amount, Mendoza proposed to settle it over a
period of 18 months, which the SSS approved. Despite the extensions granted
by SSS to Mendoza, Mendoza still failed to settle the amount. Thus, the
employees filed an information against Mendoza. Mendoza contends that during
the period of August 1998 to July 1999, SATII shut down due to the general
decline in the economy. Thus, the non-remittance was done in good faith.
Issue:
Whether or not good faith can be a defense for failure to remit the SSS Premium
Ruling:
Remittance of contribution to the SSS under Sec. 22 of the Social Security Act is
mandatory. No discretion or alternative is granted to the SSS Commission in the
enforcement of the laws mandate that the employer who fails to comply with his
legal obligation to remit the premiums to the SSS shall pay a penalty of 3% per
month. Good faith or bad faith is irrelevant since the law makes no distinction
between an employer who professes good reasons for delaying remittance of
premiums and another who deliberately disregards the legal duty imposed upon
him to make such remittance. From the moment the remittance of premiums due
is delay, the penalty immediately attaches to the delayed premium payments by
force of law. Failure to comply with the law being malum prohibitum, intent to
commit it or good faith is immaterial.
4. SSS v Signey
FACTS:
Rodolfo Signey, a SSS member, died on May 21, 2001. In his records, he
declared Yolanda as primary beneficiary and his 4 children with her as secondary
beneficiaries. Yolanda then claimed for the benefits in SSS and she revealed that
the deceased had a common-law wife named Gina Servano, with whom the
deceased had 2 minor children (Ginalyn and Rodelyn). This was indeed
confirmed because Gina likewise, claimed for benefits. She declared that,
Yolanda and she were just the common-law wives, and Editha Espinosa was the
legal wife. Editha then also claimed for the benefits stating that she indeed was
the legal wife.
SSS denied the death benefits claim by Yolanda, but recognized the two minor
children of Gina as the primary beneficiaries of the deceased under the SSS
Law. SSS was also able to discover that the marriage between Yolanda and
Rodolfo were null and void for having been contracted while Rodolfos marriage
with Editha still subsisted as confirmed by the Civil Registry.
Issue:
Who is entitled to the SSS benefits of a member who was survived not only by
his legal wife, but also by two common-law wives with whom he had six children?
Held:
The Court agreed with SSS, stating that the two minor children of the deceased
with Gina was entitled 100% of the benefits as provided by the SSS Law. The
SSS Law was clear in stating that for a minor child to qualify as a dependent
entitled the benefit, the only requirement was that the child must be below 21
years of age, not married nor gainfully employed.
Though Editha waived her claim for the rights to the claim of benefits, it was not a
strong ground for Yolandas claim because she did not even try to allege and
prove any infirmity in the marriage between the deceased and Editha, after
having been proven that her marriage with Rodolfo was null and void. She was
disqualified because thet did not have a legitimate child or children. Under the
SSS Law, it follows that the dependent illegitimate minor children of the
deceased shall be entitled the death benefits as the primary beneficiaries.
5. SSS v Jarque
FACTS:
In 1955 Clemente Bailon and Alice Diaz married in Barcelona, Sorsogon. Fifteen
plus years later, Clemente filed an action to declare the presumptive death of
Alice, she being an absentee. The petition was granted in 1970.
In 1983, Clemente married Jarque. The two live together until Clementes death
in 1998. Jarque then sought to claim her husbands SSS benefits and the same
were granted her. On the other hand, a certain Cecilia Bailon-Yap who claimed
that she is the daughter of Bailon to a certain Elisa Jayona petitioned before the
SSS that they be given the reimbursement for the funeral spending for it was
actually them who shouldered the burial expenses of Clemente.
They further claim that Clemente contracted three marriages; one with Alice,
another with Elisa and the other with Jarque. Cecilia also averred that Alice is
alive and kicking and Alice subsequently emerged; Cecilia claimed that Clemente
obtained the declaration of Alices presumptive death in bad faith for he was
aware of the whereabouts of Alice or if not he could have easily located her in her
parents place. She was in Sorsogon all along in her parents place. She went
there upon learning that Clemente had been having extra-marital affairs.
SSS then ruled that Jarque should reimburse what had been granted her and to
return the same to Cecilia since she shouldered the burial expenses and that the
benefits should go to Alice because her reappearance had terminated
Clementes marriage with Jarque. Further, SSS ruled that the RTCs decision in
declaring Alice to be presumptively death is erroneous. Teresita appealed the
decision of the SSS before the Social Security Comission and the SSC affirmed
SSS. The CA however ruled the contrary.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the mere appearance of the absent spouse declared
presumptively dead automatically terminates the subsequent marriage.
HELD:
There is no previous marriage to restore for it is terminated upon Clementes
death. Likewise there is no subsequent marriage to terminate for the same is
terminated upon Clementes death. SSS is correct in ruling that it is inutile for
Alice to pursue the recording of her reappearance before the local civil registrar
through an affidavit or a court action. But it is not correct for the SSS to rule upon
the declaration made by the RTC.
The SSC or the SSS has no judicial power to review the decision of the RTC.
SSS is indeed empowered to determine as to who should be the rightful
beneficiary of the benefits obtained by a deceased member in case of disputes
but such power does not include the appellate power to review a court decision
or declaration. In the case at bar, the RTC ruling is binding and Jarques marriage
to Clemente is still valid because no affidavit was filed by Alice to make known
her reappearance legally. Alice reappeared only after Clementes death and in
this case she can no longer file such an affidavit; in this case the bad faith [or
good faith] of Clemente can no longer be raised the marriage herein is
considered voidable and must be attacked directly not collaterally it is however
impossible for a direct attack since there is no longer a marriage to be attacked
for the same has been terminated upon Clementes death.
GSIS Law
1. Gership Association v GSIS
2. GSIS v De Leon
FACTS:
Respondent Fernando P. de Leon retired as Chief State Prosecutor of the
Department of Justice (DOJ) in 1992, after 44 years of service to the
government. He applied for retirement under Republic Act (R.A.) No. 910,
invoking R.A. No. 3783, as amended by R.A. No. 4140, which provides that chief
state prosecutors hold the same rank as judges. Thereafter, and for more than
nine years, respondent continuously received his retirement benefits, until 2001,
when he failed to receive his monthly pension.
Respondent learned that GSIS cancelled the payment of his pension because
the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) informed GSIS that
respondent was not qualified to retire under R.A. No. 910; that the law was
meant to apply only to justices and judges; and that having the same rank and
qualification as a judge did not entitle respondent to the retirement benefits
provided thereunder.
Respondent then filed a petition for mandamus before the CA, praying that
petitioner be compelled to continue paying his monthly pension and to pay his
unpaid monthly benefits from 2001. The CA granted the petition. Petitioner GSIS
is now before this Court, assailing the Decision of the CA and the Resolution
denying its motion for reconsideration. GSIS argues that the writ of mandamus
issued by the CA is not proper because it compels petitioner to perform an act
that is contrary to law.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the CA erred in granting the petition for mandamus
HELD:
This case involves a former government official who, after honorably serving
office for 44 years, was comfortably enjoying his retirement in the relative
security of a regular monthly pension, but found himself abruptly denied the
benefit and left without means of sustenance. This is a situation that obviously
cries out for the proper application of retirement laws, which are in the class of
social legislation. Indeed, retirement laws are liberally construed and
administered in favor of the persons intended to be benefited, and all doubts are
resolved in favor of the retiree to achieve their humanitarian purpose.
In this case, respondent was able to establish that he has a clear legal right to
the reinstatement of his retirement benefits. In stopping the payment of
respondents monthly pension, GSIS relied on the memorandum of the DBM,
which, in turn, was based on the Chief Presidential Legal Counsels opinion that
respondent, not being a judge, was not entitled to retire under R.A. No. 910. And
because respondent had been mistakenly allowed to receive retirement benefits
under R.A. No. 910, GSIS erroneously concluded that respondent was not
entitled to any retirement benefits at all, not even under any other extant
retirement law. This is flawed logic.
Respondents disqualification from receiving retirement benefits under R.A. No.
910 does not mean that he is disqualified from receiving any retirement benefit
under any other existing retirement law.
Prior to the effectivity of R.A. No. 8291, retiring government employees who were
not entitled to the benefits under R.A. No. 910 had the option to retire under
either of two laws: Commonwealth Act No. 186, as amended by R.A. No. 660, or
P.D. No. 1146.
In his Comment, respondent implicitly indicated his preference to retire under
P.D. No. 1146, since this law provides for higher benefits, and because the same
was the latest law at the time of his retirement in 1992.
Under P.D. No. 1146, to be eligible for retirement benefits, one must satisfy the
following requisites:
Section 11. Conditions for Old-Age Pension.
(a) Old-age pension shall be paid to a member who:
(1) has at least fifteen years of service;
(2) is at least sixty years of age; and
(3) is separated from the service.
Respondent had complied with these requirements at the time of his retirement.
GSIS does not dispute this. Accordingly, respondent is entitled to receive the
benefits provided under Section 12 of the same law. To grant respondent these
benefits does not equate to double retirement, as GSIS mistakenly claims. Since
respondent has been declared ineligible to retire under R.A. No. 910, GSIS
should simply apply the proper retirement law to respondents claim, in
substitution of R.A. No. 910.
It must also be underscored that GSIS itself allowed respondent to retire under
R.A. No. 910, following jurisprudence laid down by this Court.
One could hardly fault respondent, though a seasoned lawyer, for relying on
petitioners interpretation of the pertinent retirement laws, considering that the
latter is tasked to administer the governments retirement system. He had the
right to assume that GSIS personnel knew what they were doing. Since the
change in circumstances was through no fault of respondent, he cannot be
prejudiced by the same.
DENIED
3. GSIS v Alcaraz