G.R. L-47175 December 15, 1986
VICENTE BERENGUEL, petitioner, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES (Bureau of Public Schools), respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Vicente Berenguel, a public school teacher since 1946, was confined for chronic pulmonary tuberculosis from November 1957 to April 1958. Prior to his optional retirement at age 63 in 1969, he was again hospitalized from July 16 to October 25, 1969, for a minimal fibrotic lesion and underwent thyroid surgery. He filed a claim for disability benefits in 1975. The Acting Referee granted his claim, awarding disability benefits for the period of his 1969 hospitalization and reimbursing his medical expenses.
The Workmen’s Compensation Commission reversed this decision and dismissed the claim. The Commission held that a chest x-ray taken in 1975 did not show tuberculosis and could not support the 1969 illness. It also ruled that Berenguel should have used his terminal leave for his 1969 absence and that medical expense reimbursement was improper as the receipts post-dated his retirement.

ISSUE

Whether the Workmen’s Compensation Commission erred in dismissing Berenguel’s claim for disability benefits and medical reimbursement.

RULING

Yes, the Commission erred. The Supreme Court reinstated the award of the Acting Referee, with modifications. The legal logic is anchored on the presumption of compensability under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. Once an illness supervenes during employment, it is presumed to have arisen out of or been aggravated by said employment. The burden to rebut this presumption by substantial evidence shifts to the employer.
Here, Berenguel established that his tuberculosis was contracted during his employment in 1957 and persisted until his retirement in 1969, as shown by his 1958 confinement records and a 1969 medical certificate. The respondent failed to present any evidence to overthrow this presumption. The Court rejected the respondent’s arguments. First, the fact that teachers were only covered by the Act in 1964 does not negate that the illness was contracted during employment. Second, optional retirement does not bar a compensation claim if disability exists. Third, an x-ray is not an indispensable requirement for compensation. The test is probability, not certainty, which was satisfied.
Regarding medical expenses, the findings of the Compensation Rating Medical Officer are binding. The fact that expenses were incurred post-retirement is immaterial, as the compensable illness originated during employment. The disability benefit was modified to the statutory maximum of P6,000.00.