G.R. No. L-43066. December 29, 1978.
Cresenciano G. Legaspi, petitioner, vs. Province of Negros Occidental (Dona Corazon Locsin Montelibano Memorial Hospital) and The Workmen’s Compensation Commission, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Cresenciano G. Legaspi, a nursing attendant at respondent hospital, filed a claim under the Workmen’s Compensation Act for disability benefits. He alleged that his bronchial asthma, which caused his hospitalization and absence from work on two occasions in 1973, supervened or was aggravated by his employment. The hospital controverted, arguing asthma is hereditary and allergic, not compensable, and that petitioner received full salary during his absences, thus suffering no income loss. The Referee granted the claim, finding the illness was aggravated by constant exposure to dust, germs, and bacteria in the hospital environment, and awarded compensation for a 48% non-scheduled disability (N.S.D.).
The Workmen’s Compensation Commission reversed the Referee’s decision and dismissed the claim. The Commission held that while petitioner suffered temporary total disability, he did not suffer any loss of earning power as he was paid his full salary during his sick leaves. It further ruled that asthma is not a disease subject to a percentage rating for non-scheduled disability under Section 18 of the Act, making the 48% N.S.D. rating baseless. Petitioner sought review of this Commission decision.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether petitioner is entitled to disability compensation benefits for his asthma, which was allegedly aggravated by his employment, despite receiving his full salary during his periods of absence.

RULING

The Supreme Court modified the Commission’s decision. The Court agreed with the Commission that petitioner was not entitled to disability compensation under Section 18 of the Act. The legal logic is that disability compensation under the Act is intended to indemnify the loss or impairment of earning capacity due to a work-related injury or illness. Since petitioner received his full salary for the days he was absent, he suffered no loss of earnings; therefore, no disability compensation, whether for temporary total or permanent partial disability, is payable. The Court emphasized that the term “disability” in the Act refers to loss of earning capacity, not merely the illness or injury itself.
Furthermore, the Court held that asthma is not analogous to amputations or disfigurement and thus does not fall under “non-scheduled disability” under Section 18. The 48% N.S.D. rating was therefore correctly rejected as having no legal basis. However, the Court disagreed with the Commission’s outright dismissal. It affirmed the Referee’s factual finding, based on the nature of petitioner’s hospital duties involving constant exposure to dust and infection, that his asthma was aggravated by his employment. Consequently, while disability compensation was not warranted due to lack of income loss, petitioner remained entitled to medical benefits under Section 13 of the Act. The Court ordered the hospital to reimburse his medical expenses (with receipts) and to provide necessary medical services and appliances for his recovery.