Herrera vs Republic
G.R. No. L-42213. October 23, 1978.
Facts:
Because of several ailments, to wit: diabetes mellitus, insomia, geneto-urinary tract infection and essential hypertension, and upon advise of his attending physician, petitioner applied for optional retirement which was duly approved. He then filed a claim for disability compensation against the Bureau of Public Schools. The acting referee granted it, but the respondent Commission dismissed the award on the ground that no substantial evidence supported claimant's illnesses as the latter are not disabling ailments, the same being part of the degenerative process prevalent among aging people.
Issue:
Whether or not the optional retirement applied for by the petitioner shall be approved.
Held:
Yes. In setting aside the questioned decision and affirming that of the referee's with modification, the Supreme Court held that an illness which supervened in the course of and was aggravated by the employment is presumed compensable and the employer has the burden to prove the contrary; that the possibility that the ailments may be caused by the aging process will not be sufficient to remove the same from the periphery of compensable disabling diseases under the Workmen's Compensation Act because the law applies to the young as well as to the aged; and that with the approval of the employee's optional retirement the fact of the latter's disability is placed beyond doubt.
An illness which supervenes in the course of and is aggravated by the employment in the employee's disability to perform his customary work either permanently or for some period of time, is presumed compensable. The burden is on the employer to rebut by satisfactory evidence that legal presumption.
It has been held that where the claimant simply presented a physician's report attesting to his illness and an application for sick leave due to his ailment the said documents had sufficiently substantiated his claim and it was incumbent upon the employer to overthrow by its own evidence the presumption of compensability of the claim of the disabled employee. (Sudario Jr. VWCC, 79 SCRA 337)
Disability occurs when an employee is disabled from rendering further service due to his physical inability to perform work in the usual and customary way. For purposes of the Workmen's Compensation Act there is disability when there is a loss or diminution of earning power which is due to an injury arising out of and in the course of the employment. 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. (Bello v. WCC, 80 SCRA 153)
While the possibility that the ailment may be caused by the aging process as claimed by respondent employer, nonetheless, that fact alone will not be sufficient to remove the ailment from the periphery of compensable disabling diseases under the Workmen's Compensation Act. The Law applies to the young as well as to the aged, and while advancing age may be a controlling factor to the occurrence of an injury, the constant physical and mental exertions, strain, and tension in teaching children of tender age for a period of almost 37 years are equally contributing and aggravating causes which render the resulting disabling injury or ailment compensable under the law. (Bautista v. WCC, 80 SCRA 313)
It has been held in a litany of decisions that with the approval of the employee's optional retirement before his scheduled compulsory retirement at the age of 65, the fact of said employee's disability is placed beyond question of doubt considering that under Commonwealth Act 180 as amended by R.A. 1616 and No. 4968 in conjunction with Memorandum Circular No. 133 of the Office of the President, October 16, 1967, optional retirement before reaching the compulsory age of 65 is authorized only when the employee "is physically incapacitated to render sound and efficient service."