FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. L-43405. February 21, 1980.]
FAUSTO ROMBAOA, Petitioner, v. THE WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION and THE PANIQUI SUGAR MILLS, INC., Respondents.
Maximino C. Lopez for Petitioner.
Antonio San Vicente for Private Respondent.
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 R03-WCC Case No. 12236 entitled "Fausto Rombaoa, Claimant, versus, Paniqui Sugar Mills, Inc., Respondent" affirming the decision of Regional Office No. III, Workmen’s Compensation Section, at Pampanga dismissing the claim on the ground that the illness of the claimant could not be attributed to the nature of his work. 1
The petitioner, Fausto Rombaoa, filed a claim against Paniqui Sugar Mills, Inc. for disability compensation with Regional Office No. III Department of Labor, Pampanga because he was found to be suffering from PTB minimal and was not re-employed for the milling crop year 1973-1974. Along with twenty-three (23) other cases of similar nature the claim was dismissed by Regional Office No. 3 for lack of merit. 2
The facts, as found by the Workmen’s Compensation Commission, are that the claimant, petitioner herein, was employed by the Paniqui Sugar Mills, Inc. as Boiling House Sampler with an average weekly wage of P77.00 under the status of a seasonal laborer; that in September 1973, the claimant was found to be suffering from PTB minimal; that on account of the findings, the claimant was not re-employed for the milling year 1973-1974; 3 and that according to the physician’s report of sickness 4 the claimant was undergoing anti-kocks treatment since August 1973 up to July 19, 1975, the date of the said report "and all his medicines and chest check-up chest examinations are being borne by the Paniqui Sugar Mills, Inc."cralaw virtua1aw library
One of the cases decided jointly with the claim of the herein petitioner, Fausto Rombaoa, was that filed by Florentino Hilario, also against Paniqui Sugar Mills, Inc., R03-WC Case No. 12228. The claim of Florentino Hilario was likewise denied by Manuel P. Asuncion, Over-All Coordinator of Regional Office No. III. Florentino Hilario appealed also to the Workmen’s Compensation Commission which rendered a decision, the dispositive part of which reads:chanrobles.com : virtual law library
"WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from should be, as it is hereby REVERSED, and the respondent is ordered:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
1. to pay the claimant the sum of TWO THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED SIXTY-TWO PESOS and 16/100 (P2,162.16) as disability compensation benefits (1,201.20 under Section 14; and P960.96 under Section 18);
2. to pay to Atty. Maximino C. Lopez the sum of TWO HUNDRED SIXTEEN PESOS and 21/100 (P216.21) as attorney’s fees;
3. to pay to the Bureau of Workmen’s Compensation the sum of TWENTY-SEVEN PESOS (P27.00) as administrative and review fees.
SO ORDERED.
Quezon City, Philippines, January 30, 1976." 5
The facts in the case filed by Florentino Hilario are similar to the facts in the case filed by Faustino Rombaoa.
The Workmen’s Compensation Commission granted the claim of Florentino Hilario because:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"The respondent contends that claimant’s ailment could have been contracted during the off-milling season, on the basis that he was found fit for work for the 1972-1973 milling season. The fallacy of this reasoning is that the possibility of claimant having contracted his disease during, and not after, the 1972-1973 milling season, is not precluded. Since claimant’s lung disease had certainly supervened at the time of his employment, the presumption is that it arose out of, or was at least aggravated by, his employment. Anyway, even if there is a doubt on the exact date of the inception of claimant’s disease, this doubt will not be a draw-back of compensability. The same should be resolved in favor of the claimant.
Employers, not excluding the respondent herein, are not allowed by law to separate, under any guise whatsoever, their sick and disabled workers without paying the proper compensation as provided by the Act. At a time when the workingman needs most the help of his employer, the latter should not capriciously discard the former like a useless piece of garbage. If this were allowed, then the beneficient provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, could be circumvented by unscrupulous employers. We cannot permit this." 6
The foregoing ruling of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission equally applies to the case of the herein petitioner. The sickness of PTB minimal must have supervened during the previous 1972-1973 milling season.
Article 4 of the amended Labor Code provides that "All doubts in the implementation and interpretation of the provisions of this Code, including its implementing rules and regulations, shall be resolved in favor of labor." chanrobles.com:cralaw:red
In Caltex (Philippines), Inc. v. Derpo, Et Al., 7 this Court quoted with approval the following observation of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"Pre-employment examination of the claimant showed that he was healthy and fit for work. The fact that he later on contracted tuberculosis, in the absence of other attending circumstances, indicates that the nature and conditions of his employment contributed to his illness."cralaw virtua1aw library
In the case of Florentino Hilario, the Workmen’s Compensation Commission declared the claimant, who was also afflicted with PTB, minimal entitled to compensation for temporary total disability under Section 14 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, which is for the period of six (6) months, the estimated healing period of PTB, minimal and to compensation for permanent partial disability under Section 18 of said Act to the extent of 12% of non-scheduled disability consisting of pulmonary disfunction as a residual effect of the healed disease. 8
The same benefits should be awarded to the herein petitioner, Fausto Rombaoa, who was also earning an average weekly wage of P77.00.
WHEREFORE, the decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission sought to be reviewed is hereby set aside and the Paniqui Sugar Mills, Inc. is ordered:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
1. To pay the petitioner the sum of TWO THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED SIXTY-TWO PESOS AND 16/100 (P2,162.16) as disability compensation benefits and One Thousand Two Hundred-One and 20/100 (P1,201.20) under Section 14; and Nine Hundred Sixty Pesos and 96/100 (P960.96) under Section 18, all of the Workmen’s Compensation Act;
2. To pay the petitioner Two Hundred Sixteen Pesos (P216.00) as attorney’s fees; and
3. To pay the successor of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission Sixty-One Pesos (P61.00) as administrative fee.
SO ORDERED.
Teehankee, Makasiar, Guerrero, De Castro and Melencio-Herrera, JJ., concur.
The petitioner, Fausto Rombaoa, filed a claim against Paniqui Sugar Mills, Inc. for disability compensation with Regional Office No. III Department of Labor, Pampanga because he was found to be suffering from PTB minimal and was not re-employed for the milling crop year 1973-1974. Along with twenty-three (23) other cases of similar nature the claim was dismissed by Regional Office No. 3 for lack of merit. 2
The facts, as found by the Workmen’s Compensation Commission, are that the claimant, petitioner herein, was employed by the Paniqui Sugar Mills, Inc. as Boiling House Sampler with an average weekly wage of P77.00 under the status of a seasonal laborer; that in September 1973, the claimant was found to be suffering from PTB minimal; that on account of the findings, the claimant was not re-employed for the milling year 1973-1974; 3 and that according to the physician’s report of sickness 4 the claimant was undergoing anti-kocks treatment since August 1973 up to July 19, 1975, the date of the said report "and all his medicines and chest check-up chest examinations are being borne by the Paniqui Sugar Mills, Inc."cralaw virtua1aw library
One of the cases decided jointly with the claim of the herein petitioner, Fausto Rombaoa, was that filed by Florentino Hilario, also against Paniqui Sugar Mills, Inc., R03-WC Case No. 12228. The claim of Florentino Hilario was likewise denied by Manuel P. Asuncion, Over-All Coordinator of Regional Office No. III. Florentino Hilario appealed also to the Workmen’s Compensation Commission which rendered a decision, the dispositive part of which reads:chanrobles.com : virtual law library
"WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from should be, as it is hereby REVERSED, and the respondent is ordered:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
1. to pay the claimant the sum of TWO THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED SIXTY-TWO PESOS and 16/100 (P2,162.16) as disability compensation benefits (1,201.20 under Section 14; and P960.96 under Section 18);
2. to pay to Atty. Maximino C. Lopez the sum of TWO HUNDRED SIXTEEN PESOS and 21/100 (P216.21) as attorney’s fees;
3. to pay to the Bureau of Workmen’s Compensation the sum of TWENTY-SEVEN PESOS (P27.00) as administrative and review fees.
SO ORDERED.
Quezon City, Philippines, January 30, 1976." 5
The facts in the case filed by Florentino Hilario are similar to the facts in the case filed by Faustino Rombaoa.
The Workmen’s Compensation Commission granted the claim of Florentino Hilario because:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"The respondent contends that claimant’s ailment could have been contracted during the off-milling season, on the basis that he was found fit for work for the 1972-1973 milling season. The fallacy of this reasoning is that the possibility of claimant having contracted his disease during, and not after, the 1972-1973 milling season, is not precluded. Since claimant’s lung disease had certainly supervened at the time of his employment, the presumption is that it arose out of, or was at least aggravated by, his employment. Anyway, even if there is a doubt on the exact date of the inception of claimant’s disease, this doubt will not be a draw-back of compensability. The same should be resolved in favor of the claimant.
Employers, not excluding the respondent herein, are not allowed by law to separate, under any guise whatsoever, their sick and disabled workers without paying the proper compensation as provided by the Act. At a time when the workingman needs most the help of his employer, the latter should not capriciously discard the former like a useless piece of garbage. If this were allowed, then the beneficient provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, could be circumvented by unscrupulous employers. We cannot permit this." 6
The foregoing ruling of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission equally applies to the case of the herein petitioner. The sickness of PTB minimal must have supervened during the previous 1972-1973 milling season.
Article 4 of the amended Labor Code provides that "All doubts in the implementation and interpretation of the provisions of this Code, including its implementing rules and regulations, shall be resolved in favor of labor." chanrobles.com:cralaw:red
In Caltex (Philippines), Inc. v. Derpo, Et Al., 7 this Court quoted with approval the following observation of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"Pre-employment examination of the claimant showed that he was healthy and fit for work. The fact that he later on contracted tuberculosis, in the absence of other attending circumstances, indicates that the nature and conditions of his employment contributed to his illness."cralaw virtua1aw library
In the case of Florentino Hilario, the Workmen’s Compensation Commission declared the claimant, who was also afflicted with PTB, minimal entitled to compensation for temporary total disability under Section 14 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, which is for the period of six (6) months, the estimated healing period of PTB, minimal and to compensation for permanent partial disability under Section 18 of said Act to the extent of 12% of non-scheduled disability consisting of pulmonary disfunction as a residual effect of the healed disease. 8
The same benefits should be awarded to the herein petitioner, Fausto Rombaoa, who was also earning an average weekly wage of P77.00.
WHEREFORE, the decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission sought to be reviewed is hereby set aside and the Paniqui Sugar Mills, Inc. is ordered:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
1. To pay the petitioner the sum of TWO THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED SIXTY-TWO PESOS AND 16/100 (P2,162.16) as disability compensation benefits and One Thousand Two Hundred-One and 20/100 (P1,201.20) under Section 14; and Nine Hundred Sixty Pesos and 96/100 (P960.96) under Section 18, all of the Workmen’s Compensation Act;
2. To pay the petitioner Two Hundred Sixteen Pesos (P216.00) as attorney’s fees; and
3. To pay the successor of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission Sixty-One Pesos (P61.00) as administrative fee.
SO ORDERED.
Teehankee, Makasiar, Guerrero, De Castro and Melencio-Herrera, JJ., concur.
Endnotes:
1. Annex "B", Rollo, pp. 17-18.
2. Annex "A", Rollo, pp. 15-16.
3. Annex "B", Rollo. p. 17.
4. Annex "D", Rollo. p. 22.
5. Rollo, p. 21.
6. Rollo, p. 20.
7. 16 SCRA 77, 79.
8. Rollo, pp. 20-21.
