G.R. No. L-30443 October 31, 1972
FRANCISCO S. MARCELINO, petitioner, vs. SEVEN-UP BOTTLING COMPANY OF THE PHILIPPINES and THE WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Francisco Marcelino was employed by respondent Seven-Up Bottling Company on March 16, 1953, after passing a pre-employment physical examination. He worked as a stocker, assistant foreman, and finally as a bottle inspector. On July 12, 1965, while performing his duties, he suddenly collapsed and became unconscious. He was diagnosed with hypertension and was hospitalized. Due to this illness, he filed a claim for disability compensation benefits under the Workmen’s Compensation Act.
The Acting Referee awarded Marcelino P6,000.00 as permanent total disability benefits. However, the Workmen’s Compensation Commission, on review, reversed this decision. The Commission ruled that Marcelino was only temporarily disabled from July to November 1965, entitling him to compensation for 16-3/7 weeks under Section 14 of the Act, not for permanent total disability under Section 15. The Commission denied Marcelino’s subsequent motions for reconsideration, prompting this petition for review.

ISSUE

Whether petitioner Francisco Marcelino is entitled to compensation based on permanent total disability, rather than merely temporary total disability, under the Workmen’s Compensation Act.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court ruled that Marcelino is entitled to compensation for permanent total disability. The legal logic centers on the interpretation of “permanent total disability” within the context of social legislation. The Court clarified that permanent total disability does not require absolute helplessness or an utter incapacity for any work. Instead, it refers to the disablement of an employee to earn wages in the same kind of work, or work of a similar nature, for which he was trained or accustomed to perform.
The Court found that Marcelino’s hypertension, which arose in the course of his employment, rendered him incapable of resuming his former work as a bottle inspector. The respondent company’s refusal to re-employ him after his illness, despite his satisfactory service record, was deemed the best proof of this incapacity. The Workmen’s Compensation Act is a social legislation designed to afford relief to labor; thus, it must be liberally construed in favor of the worker. All doubts should be resolved to promote its beneficent purpose. Consequently, the Commission’s decision was set aside. The Court reinstated the referee’s award of P6,000.00 as permanent total disability compensation, plus medical services, attorney’s fees, and costs.