Legaspi Oil Co., Inc. v. Serrano

G.R. No. L-29857 · 1979-02-28 · J. ABAD SANTOS, J.: · Primary: Labor; Secondary: Remedial
REITERATION

Facts

1. The Antecedents: Honesto Adornado, a laborer employed by Legaspi Oil Company, Inc., suffered a severe injury in the course of his employment, resulting in the traumatic amputation of the four fingers of his right hand at the base of the first phalanges. The injury was reported, and the employer's insurance carrier, Philippine American General Insurance Company, Inc., made a payment of P2,135.84 based on a computation of the loss of individual fingers. However, the Workmen's Compensation Unit (WC Unit) later issued an award for P4,183.20, considering the injury as a 100% loss of use of the entire right hand. 2. Procedural History: Following the WC Unit's award on June 7, 1968, the petitioners protested, arguing that the compensation should be based on the loss of the four fingers, not the entire hand. This protest was denied, and an Alias Writ of Execution was issued on October 4, 1968, directing the Sheriff of Manila to enforce the award. The petitioners then filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court, seeking to annul the award and enjoin the execution. 3. The Petition: The petitioners filed a petition for certiorari, arguing that the Chief of the Workmen's Compensation Unit, Doroteo L. Serrano, acted with grave abuse of discretion in awarding compensation for the total loss of use of the right hand, rather than for the loss of the four fingers. They sought to have the award modified and to prevent the City Sheriff of Manila from executing it. The petition also included a prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction, which was not granted. The respondent, Honesto Adornado, filed a counterclaim for attorney's fees and expenses.

Issue(s)

Whether the loss of four fingers amounts to the loss of the entire hand under the functional test of disability. Whether attorney's fees may be awarded despite not being part of the original administrative award.

Ruling

The petition is dismissed. Petitioners are ordered to pay Honesto Adornado the balance of the award due to him with legal interest from June 7, 1968, plus P900.00 by way of attorney's fees and expenses of litigation.

Ratio Decidendi

On Issue 1: The Supreme Court held that the loss of the four fingers (index, middle, ring, and little finger) at the base of the first phalanges constitutes 100% loss of use of the hand. Applying Section 17 of the Workmen's Compensation Act (Act No. 3428), the Court emphasized that 'permanent loss of use' is equivalent to amputation. Relying on Romero v. WCC, the Court noted that the employer's own Physician's Report (WC Form 4) explicitly stated the degree of injury was '100% of right hand' and 'Total Disability for Right Hand.' The functional test for a working hand requires the ability to 'grasp and pinch,' which depends on the combined action of the fingers against the thumb and palm; without the fingers, the remaining thumb and palm are rendered useless for gainful employment. Following Lombo v. Standard Cigarette Manufacturing Co., the Court reiterated that compensation is based on the loss of earning capacity, and the medical finding of 100% functional loss should not be disturbed by the mere 'theorizing' of the petitioners. On Issue 2: The Court ruled that attorney's fees and expenses of litigation are recoverable under Article 2208 (11) of the Civil Code when deemed just and equitable. Although not awarded by the Workmen's Compensation Unit, the Court found the award appropriate because Adornado was forced to undergo litigation to defend a 'manifestly justified' award against the 'penny-pinching' efforts of the insurance carrier. The Court emphasized that obligations arising from law, such as workmen's compensation, are subject to the Civil Code's provisions on damages, making the award of P900.00 for fees and expenses legally sound.

Main Doctrine

The permanent loss of the use of a hand is equivalent to and shall be compensated at the same rate as the loss of a hand, and medical findings supporting such loss of use should not be disregarded by the Workmen's Compensation Unit.

Access audio review, related cases, codal links, and more.

Open LexMatePH →