GR 29551; (March, 1970) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-29551 March 25, 1970
B. F. GOODRICH PHILIPPINES, INC., petitioner, vs. EMILIO ACEBEDO, WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, respondents.
FACTS
Claimant Emilio Acebedo, a calender operator for B. F. Goodrich Philippines, Inc., filed a claim for compensation for disability due to recurrent left inguinal hernia sustained while performing his duty. The employer, in its report, indicated it would not controvert the claim under Section 14 of the Act and had already paid P715.26, but contested any award under Section 17. The Chief of Section issued a letter-computation awarding disability benefits of P5,699.78. The employer assailed this award, relying on an opinion from the Chief of the Evaluation Division of the Bureau of Workmen’s Compensation that inguinal hernia “after repair by surgery should not be considered as partial permanent disability under the Workmen’s Compensation Act.”
ISSUE
Whether the Workmen’s Compensation Commission committed a grave abuse of discretion in awarding partial permanent disability compensation to the claimant, despite a medical opinion from its Evaluation Division to the contrary.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court sustained the award of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission. The Commission is not bound to yield unquestioning obedience to a medical opinion from its Evaluation Division, especially when such opinion was not brought to the attention of the claimant, depriving him of the opportunity to object to its admission—a fundamental requirement of due process. The Court found no grave abuse of discretion, as the Commission’s determination was based on the evidence on record and its prior ruling in a similar case (Opalalic v. B. F. Goodrich Philippines, Inc.). The Commission specifically noted that it did not appear the claimant’s hernia was ever repaired by operation or that such operation was successful to prevent recurrence, making the invoked medical opinion inapplicable. The Court reiterated that errors in judgment, if any, do not constitute grave abuse of discretion. The decision and resolution of the Commission were affirmed.