GR L 42618; (January, 1987) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-42618 January 7, 1987
Sarmiento Engineering Corporation, petitioner, vs. Workmen’s Compensation Commission, Honorable Severo M. Pucan, Chairman of the Commission and Maxima Vda. de Delena, respondents.
FACTS
The case involves a claim for death benefits under the Workmen’s Compensation Act filed by Maxima Vda. de Delena, widow of the deceased employee Jose F. Delena. Delena was employed as a shop supervisor by Sarmiento Engineering Corporation from 1968 until his death on December 11, 1974. Prior to his death, Delena suffered from a kidney disease and later cancer, leading to multiple hospital confinements.
The petitioner corporation does not dispute the compensability of the disease that caused Delena’s death. It paid for his initial hospitalization at F.M. Cruz Hospital and continued to pay his full salary during his sickness. However, for subsequent treatments at other hospitals, the deceased himself advanced money for medicines, X-rays, and professional fees, supported by receipts. The Workmen’s Compensation Commission ordered the petitioner to reimburse these extra expenses to the widow, deducting only a prior cash advance.
ISSUE
The sole legal issue is whether the employer, Sarmiento Engineering Corporation, is obligated to reimburse the extra hospitalization and medical expenses personally advanced by the deceased employee during his illness, which were not initially provided by the employer.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission, ruling that the employer is liable to reimburse the expenses. The legal logic is anchored on the mandatory duty of the employer under Section 13 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act. This provision obligates the employer to provide the necessary services, appliances, and supplies required by an employee’s disability and recovery process.
The Court emphasized that the law explicitly states if the employer cannot furnish these necessities promptly, the employee may acquire them at the employer’s expense. Since the petitioner did not provide these specific medical services and supplies during the deceased’s subsequent treatments, his act of advancing payment for them was legally justified. Consequently, these expenses are not deductible from the death benefits and constitute a separate reimbursable obligation of the employer. The employer’s prior payments for other hospital costs and salary do not extinguish this specific statutory duty to cover all necessary medical expenses.