G.R. No. L-42595. December 18, 1979
Eustaquio Alejandro, petitioner, vs. Workmen’s Compensation Commission, Republic of the Philippines (Bureau of Public Highways, Catanduanes Engineering District), respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Eustaquio Alejandro, a Maintenance Capataz with the Bureau of Public Highways, sustained an injury to his left eye on September 16, 1969, when droplets of hot asphalt hit him while supervising road asphalting. He received emergency treatment and was later diagnosed with “Vitreous Hemorrhage,” complicated by hypertension. He retired from government service on September 20, 1969, at age 65, after roughly 28 years of service. He filed a compensation claim on January 15, 1973. The Acting Referee of the Workmen’s Compensation Unit awarded him benefits for temporary total disability, permanent partial disability, and medical expenses.
The respondent employer contested the claim, arguing the injury did not arise from employment. The Workmen’s Compensation Commission reversed the award. It found that Alejandro continued working until his compulsory retirement on September 19, 1969, and stopped work due to age, not disability. The Commission held he suffered no wage loss from the injury, thus disqualifying him from certain benefits. Alejandro petitioned the Supreme Court for review.

ISSUE

Whether the petitioner is entitled to disability compensation benefits under the Workmen’s Compensation Act despite his compulsory retirement shortly after the injury and the apparent absence of immediate wage loss.

RULING

The Supreme Court modified the Commission’s decision, partially granting the petition. The Court clarified the distinction between different compensation benefits under the Act. It held that the petitioner was not entitled to benefits under Section 14 for temporary total disability. The record showed he worked until September 19, 1969, and retired compulsorily the next day due to age. No application for sick leave was filed, and his service record reflected no leave for that period. Following precedent, compensation under Section 14 cannot extend beyond an employee’s compulsory retirement date, and no wage loss from the injury was proven for that period.
However, the Court awarded benefits under Section 18 for permanent partial disability. The legal logic is that benefits under Sections 17 and 18 are granted for the actual physical loss or impairment of a member of the body, independent of any immediate wage loss. The medical certification established a 100% permanent loss of the left eye’s use due to the work-related injury. This entitlement exists irrespective of the claimant’s subsequent retirement. The award for medical expenses under Section 13 was also upheld. Consequently, the employer was ordered to pay P2,777.00 as disability benefit, P500.00 for medical expenses, plus attorney’s and administrative fees.