G.R. No. L-29857 February 28, 1979
LEGASPI OIL COMPANY, INC. and THE PHILIPPINE AMERICAN GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., petitioners, vs. DOROTEO L. SERRANO, Chief of Workmen’s Compensation Unit, Regional Office No. VI Naga City, HONESTO ADORNADO & THE CITY SHERIFF OF MANILA, respondents.

FACTS

Honesto Adornado, a laborer for Legaspi Oil Company, suffered traumatic amputation of the four fingers of his right hand in a work-related accident on January 7, 1968. The employer and its insurer, Philippine American General Insurance Co., Inc., submitted the required reports, including a Physician’s Report (WC Form 4) which described the injury as resulting in the “loss of use of 100% of right hand” and “Total Disability for Right Hand.” The insurer computed benefits based on the separate loss of each finger, totaling 85 weeks, and paid Adornado P2,135.84. However, the Workmen’s Compensation Unit, through respondent Chief Doroteo L. Serrano, issued an award on June 7, 1968, computing permanent partial disability based on the loss of the entire right hand (100% loss), amounting to P4,003.20 plus other benefits. The petitioners protested, insisting on the finger-by-finger computation, but the protest was denied and an alias writ of execution was issued.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Serrano committed grave abuse of discretion in ruling that the loss of four fingers constituted a loss of the entire right hand for compensation purposes.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that respondent Serrano did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The legal logic is anchored on Section 17 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, which provides compensation not only for the physical amputation of a member but also for the permanent loss of its use, considering such loss as equivalent to the loss of the member itself. The Physician’s Report, which was adopted by the employer in its own reports, constituted evidence under Section 49 of the Act and explicitly stated the injury resulted in “100% loss of use of the right hand.” The Court emphasized that the medical opinion of the attending physician regarding the degree of disability should be respected and cannot be disregarded based on mere theorizing by the employer or insurer. The test for disability is the capacity of the injured hand to perform the claimant’s previous occupation, and the loss of all fingers renders the hand useless for gainful employment. The insurer’s separate computation was an erroneous application of the documented facts. The petition was dismissed. The Court, deeming it just and equitable under Article 2208(11) of the Civil Code, also ordered petitioners to pay Adornado the balance of the award with legal interest and an additional P900.00 as attorney’s fees and litigation expenses.