Patriarca v. Workmen's Compensation Commission
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Nestor Patriarca was employed as a locomotive mechanic and later diesel locomotive supervisor by Central Azucarera de la Carlota. His work involved strenuous effort and exposure to various elements. On October 26, 1974, he experienced severe stomach pain and was diagnosed with a stomach tumor, requiring him to stop working. He underwent surgery for a partial gastrectomy. Upon returning to work on February 10, 1975, he was assigned to a less taxing position as car repair supervisor due to physical disability. He was eventually discharged from employment. Procedural History: Petitioner filed a claim for sickness and disability benefits. The private respondent failed to controvert the claim, leading to a default order. However, the claim was re-transmitted, and the hearing officer eventually issued a decision awarding petitioner compensation for loss of earning and 60% non-schedule disability (NSD). The private respondent appealed to the Workmen's Compensation Commission (WCC), which modified the decision, awarding only disability compensation under Section 14 and reversing the award for 60% NSD on the ground that gastrectomy does not constitute permanent partial disability. The Petition: Petitioner sought review of the WCC decision, arguing it was not in accordance with law, contrary to evidence, and deprived him of benefits under the principle of social justice.
Issue(s)
Whether the Workmen's Compensation Commission erred in disallowing compensation for permanent partial disability due to gastrectomy. Whether the attending physician's evaluation of disability should prevail over that of a subsequent examiner. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation for 60% non-schedule disability (NSD).
Ruling
The petition is GRANTED. The decision of the Workmen's Compensation Commission is SET ASIDE, and the decision of the Hearing Officer is REINSTATED. The respondent is ordered to pay petitioner P6,000.00 as compensation, P600.00 as attorney's fees, and P61.00 as administrative fees.
Ratio Decidendi
On the disallowance of compensation for permanent partial disability due to gastrectomy: The Court held that the Workmen's Compensation Commission erred in concluding that there is no permanent partial disability resulting from a gastrectomy. The Court emphasized that a gastrectomy, defined as the surgical removal of all or part of the stomach, inherently connotes disability or loss or impairment of a physical function. The fact that the petitioner could no longer resume his former occupation and was assigned a lighter job, and was eventually terminated due to physical disability, supports the finding of permanent partial disability. The Court clarified that while gastrectomy might not fall under specific permanent partial disability cases enumerated in Section 17 of the Act, it clearly falls under compensable non-schedule permanent partial disability as provided in Section 18 of the Act. The Court cited definitions of gastrectomy from medical dictionaries to underscore its inherent disabling nature. On the prevailing evaluation of disability: The Court ruled that the evaluation of the attending physician, Dr. Patricio Tan, who operated on and attended to the petitioner throughout his illness and recovery, should prevail over the evaluation of Dr. Antonio M. Habana, who merely examined the petitioner later for the purpose of determining disability benefits. The Court cited several cases, including Lavilla v. Secretary of Labor and Relente v. Republic, to support the principle that the physician who has direct knowledge of the patient's condition from the onset of the illness and treatment is in a better position to assess the extent of disability. Dr. Tan evaluated the loss at 75% NSD, while Dr. Habana evaluated it at 60% NSD. On entitlement to 60% non-schedule disability (NSD): The Court found that the petitioner's condition, a partial gastrectomy, constitutes a non-schedule disability under Section 18 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, which covers "all other cases of this kind of disability not mentioned in other sections of this Act." The Court rejected the Commission's interpretation that only disfigurements of the face or head are compensable under this section, noting that the schedule of compensation for such cases is non-exclusive and that loss of a portion of the stomach is a form of disfigurement causing disability. The Court agreed with the petitioner that his case clearly falls under compensable disability provided in Section 18. The Court also noted that Dr. Tan's evaluation of 75% NSD was warranted by the petitioner's condition, which would have entitled him to more compensation had the law not provided a maximum limit.
Main Doctrine
The Workmen's Compensation Commission erred in disallowing compensation for permanent partial disability arising from a gastrectomy, as such condition falls under non-schedule disabilities contemplated by Section 18 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, and the attending physician's evaluation of the extent of disability should prevail over that of a subsequent examiner.