G.R. No. L-42942 August 22, 1984
Vivencio Omison, petitioner, vs. Workmen’s Compensation Commission, et al., respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Vivencio Omison was employed as a construction helper (caminero) by the Province of Negros Occidental from 1939 until May 16, 1973. His duties involved heavy labor, exposure to dust, heat, asphalt fumes, and climatic changes. In the late 1960s, he began experiencing lowered body resistance, susceptibility to colds, and afternoon fever. In 1972, he consulted physicians who prescribed medication for tuberculosis. An x-ray on April 5, 1973, revealed “PTB, moderately advanced, Active.” Due to this illness, he applied for and was granted retirement under Commonwealth Act 186, effective May 15, 1973.
Omison filed a claim for disability benefits under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. The Workmen’s Compensation Unit in Bacolod City granted his claim, awarding compensation based on a 90% non-scheduled disability rating. However, the Workmen’s Compensation Commission (WCC) reversed this decision on appeal. The WCC dismissed the claim, reasoning that Omison rendered continuous service until retirement, which indicated no physical incapacity for work, and that there was no proof his illness impaired his earning capacity.

ISSUE

Whether the Workmen’s Compensation Commission erred in denying Omison’s claim for disability benefits on the ground that his continuous service until retirement negated any compensable disability.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court reversed the WCC decision and reinstated the award from the Workmen’s Compensation Unit. The Court clarified that under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, “disability” is not synonymous with a total inability to perform work. Citing precedent, the Court explained that disability compensation encompasses both medical incapacity and wage-loss impairment. A claimant may still be medically disabled even if they continue working, especially out of economic necessity, as was likely for Omison, a daily wage earner. His continuous service did not automatically preclude a finding of compensable disability.
The legal logic rests on the statutory presumptions of compensability. Omison entered employment in good health in 1939. His pulmonary tuberculosis, a known occupational hazard for laborers exposed to dust and extreme conditions, manifested and aggravated after over two decades of such work. This established that the illness supervened in the course of employment, giving rise to the presumption that it was work-related or aggravated by his work. The employer failed to rebut this presumption. Therefore, his illness was compensable, and the WCC erred in requiring proof of actual work stoppage as the sole indicator of disability.