Cercado v. De Dios Transportation Company
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Ernesto Cercado was employed as a driver by respondent De Dios Transportation Company, Inc. from February 23, 1961. He claimed to have worked seven days a week at P18.00 a day, while the employer stated he worked on commission, averaging three days a week at P12.00 per day. Petitioner began suffering from asthma during his employment and received medical attention from the company physician. He stopped working on February 24, 1973, and filed a claim for compensation due to bronchial asthma allegedly incurred in the course of employment. The claim was controverted by the employer, asserting the illness was due to allergy and not prolonged or overtime work. Procedural History: On March 26, 1974, petitioner executed a "Quitclaim with Motion to Dismiss," stating he received complete compensation as separation pay and full settlement, and had no further claims. He also executed a Special Power of Attorney authorizing his counsel to receive settlement money and sign release papers. His counsel received P800.00 from the respondent on March 28, 1974. The Quitclaim was filed on April 19, 1974. On May 6, 1974, petitioner executed an affidavit alleging he signed the quitclaim without understanding its contents, as his counsel did not explain it, and that he did not appear before the administering officer nor receive any settlement money. At a hearing on July 11, 1974, petitioner moved to withdraw the motion to dismiss. The Hearing Officer dismissed the case on August 19, 1974, finding full settlement. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied, and the case was elevated to the Workmen's Compensation Commission (WCC), which affirmed the dismissal on September 9, 1975. The Petition: Petitioner sought a review of the WCC Decision, arguing the "Quitclaim with Motion to Dismiss" was contrary to Sections 7 and 29 of the Workmen's Compensation Act.
Issue(s)
Whether the quitclaim executed by the petitioner is valid and bars his claim for workmen's compensation. Whether the petitioner's bronchial asthma is a compensable illness under the Workmen's Compensation Act. Whether the petitioner is entitled to disability compensation and medical services.
Ruling
The Decision of the Workmen's Compensation Commission dismissing petitioner's claim is set aside. Respondent is ordered to pay petitioner P5,200.00 as disability benefits, expenses for medical and hospital services supported by receipts, and attorney's fees of P600.00 to Atty. Bernardo Aquino. Respondent is also ordered to provide continuous medical and hospital services and supplies. Attorney Arsenio Cabanting is ordered to refund P800.00 to petitioner. The WCC is to be paid P61.00 as administrative fees.
Ratio Decidendi
On the validity of the quitclaim: The Court held that in workmen's compensation cases, the law protects the workingman, and agreements of this kind are subject to safeguards. Sections 7 and 29 of the Workmen's Compensation Act declare null and void any contract, regulation, or device intended to exempt the employer from liability, and require that any agreement on compensation must provide at least the amount prescribed by the Act and be approved by the WCC or its authorized representative. The P800.00 received by the petitioner was found to be significantly less than the maximum disability compensation of P6,000.00 to which he was entitled. Therefore, the quitclaim deed, which had the effect of releasing the respondent from its liability for the unpaid balance of the compensation due, was declared a nullity under Sections 7 and 29 of the Act. The Court emphasized that the law frowns upon any agreement that seeks to exempt the employer from liability, either partially or totally, and condemns such schemes as nullities, citing National Mirror Factory vs. Vda. de Anure. On the compensability of bronchial asthma: The Court affirmed that petitioner's bronchial asthma was an illness incurred in the course of his employment as a driver, causing disability for labor and impairment of his earning capacity. The respondent's contention that asthma is not compensable as an "allergic disease" was deemed without merit. The Court cited previous rulings in Pillsbury Mindanao Flour Milling Co. vs. Murillo and Hortizuela vs. Workmen's Compensation Commission, where disability compensation was upheld for bronchial asthma that led to separation from work or optional retirement due to physical incapacity. The Court also highlighted the safety implications of an asthmatic driver operating a passenger bus, underscoring the necessity of compensation for such conditions. On entitlement to compensation and services: Based on the established compensability of the illness and the invalidity of the quitclaim, the Court determined that petitioner was entitled to the maximum disability compensation of P6,000.00 under Section 14 of the Workmen's Compensation Act. Additionally, he was entitled to necessary services and supplies under Section 13 of the same Act. The P800.00 received by petitioner was to be deducted from the P6,000.00, and the attorney who received it was ordered to refund it to the petitioner. The Court also awarded attorney's fees to the petitioner's counsel in the present review.
Main Doctrine
A quitclaim agreement for workmen's compensation is null and void if it does not provide for at least the same amount of compensation prescribed by the Workmen's Compensation Act and is not approved by the Workmen's Compensation Commission or its authorized representative, as such agreements are subject to strict limitations imposed by law to protect the workingman.