GR L 20730; (April, 1965) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-20730 April 30, 1965
PERFECTO BONILLA, petitioner, vs. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL., respondents.
FACTS
Pedro Bonilla was employed as a latheman (machinist-mechanic) by Franklin Baker Company in September 1952. On January 20, 1961, while tightening the independent chuck of a lathe, he felt pain in his “puson” and scrotum. He was hospitalized and treated for hernia for about seven days. He returned to work on February 6, 1961, but stopped after five hours due to recurring pain. He underwent a hernia operation on June 2, 1961, and resumed work on July 29, 1961, but later could not continue, leading the company to give him P294.26 under its non-occupational sick leave plan. Bonilla filed a claim for compensation. The Hearing Officer approved the claim, ordering the employer to pay P512.02 minus the amount already given. The employer appealed to the Workmen’s Compensation Commission. Commissioner Cesareo Perez reversed the decision, finding no causal relationship between the hernia and Bonilla’s work, a decision affirmed by the Commission en banc.
ISSUE
Whether the sickness of hernia, which the claimant suffered during his employment, arose out of, or was aggravated by, the nature of his work, making it compensable under the law.
RULING
No. The Workmen’s Compensation Commission’s decision is affirmed. The medical report from the Commission’s Evaluation Division, prepared by Dr. Fidel M. Gilatco and concurred in by Dr. Jose S. Santillan, concluded that Bonilla’s hernia was of long-standing origin, pre-existing his employment, and not of recent origin. The report stated that the prerequisites for compensability of hernia were not met: (1) the hernia was not recent; (2) its appearance was not accompanied by the required pain, discoloration, and tissue tearing evidence; (3) it was not immediately preceded by a work-related strain; and (4) a protrusion did not immediately appear after the alleged strain. The report found no causal relationship between the hernia and his work, attributing the eventual operation to the progressive enlargement of a pre-existing condition over ten years, not due to aggravation from employment. The Supreme Court, treating this as a factual finding, found no reason to overturn it.