GR L 47276; (November, 1986) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-47276 November 10, 1986
ESPERANZA BUYCO, claimant-appellant, vs. HON. SECRETARY OF LABOR, in his capacity as Ex-Officio Chairman of the Compensation Appeals and Review Staff, and REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, representing the Bureau of Public Schools, respondents-appellees.
FACTS
Petitioner Esperanza Buyco, a classroom teacher, filed a claim for disability compensation benefits under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. She alleged that on January 2, 1968, she fell from a stool while putting up a picture in her classroom, causing her left breast to bump the blackboard and resulting in a stabbing pain. She was later diagnosed with “cystadenoma, breast-left.” She continued working until her optional retirement under Republic Act No. 660 on August 4, 1968, at age 63. The Acting Referee dismissed her claim, reasoning there was no loss of earning capacity due to her retirement and that her illness was an idiopathic disease per se not compensable. The Secretary of Labor affirmed this order.
ISSUE
Whether petitioner, who retired on the same day she was afflicted by an illness, can claim compensation benefits despite her optional retirement.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court reversed the orders of the labor authorities. The legal presumption of compensability under the Workmen’s Compensation Act applies since the illness supervened during employment. This presumption shifts the burden to the employer to prove the illness did not arise from or was not aggravated by the employment. The employer failed to discharge this burden. The negative statement in the physician’s report that the illness was not work-related is insufficient to overcome this legal presumption, as mere medical opinions cannot prevail over the statutory presumption.
Regarding her optional retirement, the Court ruled it does not bar her claim. The fact of optional retirement, especially when done before the compulsory age, does not negate the existence of a disabling condition. The approval of optional retirement itself suggests physical incapacity to render further efficient service. The wage-loss factor is present, as she could have continued working until the compulsory retirement age if not for her disability. Consequently, petitioner is entitled to the maximum disability compensation.