GR 78859; (July, 1990) (Digest)
G.R. No. 78859 July 19, 1990
FORTUNATA VDA. DE HORNIDO, petitioner, vs. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION and GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM (DEPT. OF EDUCATION, CULTURE AND SPORTS), respondents.
FACTS
Asenciano Hornido, an elementary public school teacher, retired on May 9, 1974. He allegedly contracted hypertension in 1965 due to the strenuous nature of his teaching duties. He died in 1976 from pneumonia secondary to a cerebrovascular accident and hypertension. On August 25, 1985, his widow, petitioner Fortunata Vda. de Hornido, filed a claim for death benefits with the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS).
The GSIS denied the claim, stating that Presidential Decree No. 626, the Employees’ Compensation Act, applies only to injury, sickness, disability, or death occurring on or after January 1, 1975. Since Hornido’s disability commenced and his retirement occurred before this date, his claim was not compensable under the new law. The petitioner appealed to the Employees’ Compensation Commission (ECC), which also dismissed the claim, ruling it fell under the old Workmen’s Compensation Act but was barred for having been filed beyond the ten-year prescriptive period.
ISSUE
Whether the petitioner’s claim for death benefits, filed in 1985 for a disability that commenced in 1965, is barred by prescription.
RULING
Yes, the claim is barred by prescription. The Supreme Court affirmed the ECC’s decision. The Court first determined the applicable law. Since Hornido’s disability arose and he retired before January 1, 1975, the governing law is the Workmen’s Compensation Act (Act No. 3428, as amended), not P.D. No. 626. This is consistent with jurisprudence holding that claims for ailments contracted before 1975 are governed by the old law, even if death or the claim itself occurs after 1975.
However, the Court found the claim was filed out of time. A cause of action under the Workmen’s Compensation Act prescribes in ten years pursuant to Article 1144 of the Civil Code. The petitioner’s cause of action accrued in 1965 when the hypertension, the alleged work-connected disability, commenced. The claim filed in 1985 was made twenty-one years later, well beyond the reglementary period. The Court rejected the petitioner’s justifications for the delay, such as scarcity of forms and transportation difficulties, finding them insufficient to excuse the inaction. Consequently, the claim was forever barred, and the petition was denied for lack of merit.