Case Digest: Austria vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 146636. August 12, 2002

  Labor Law | Policy and Definitions

• Pablo A. Austria worked as a bag piler at Central Azucarera de Tarlac .
• His duties included carrying and piling sacks of refined sugar, relocating and moving stockpiles, assisting in production weighing, cleaning the warehouse, and doing other related work.
• In 1994, petitioner started experiencing severe back pain. He underwent an MRI, which revealed a small disc protrusion at L4 and L5 level. He underwent Laminectomy in 1995, and subsequent X-rays showed osteoarthritis of the lumbar spine.
• Petitioner filed a claim for compensation benefits under PD 626 due to his osteoarthritis. 
• SSS: Granted permanent partial disability benefits.
• Petitioner requested the conversion of his permanent partial disability benefit to permanent total disability benefit, 
• SSS and ECC: Denied the claim based on clinical records and the lack of progression in his illness.
• CA: Dismissed the petition, stating that the law does not allow the conversion of permanent partial disability to permanent total disability.

WoN the Honorable Court of Appeals erred in denying the claim for additional benefits in favor of the petitioner and not allowing the conversion of his (petitioner) permanent partial disability to permanent total disability. YES

PD 626 as amended provides three types of disability benefits to qualified employees: 

(1) temporary total disability, 
(2) permanent total disability, and 
(3) permanent partial disability. 

In the case at bar, petitioner was granted by the SSS, as affirmed by the ECC, permanent partial disability benefit, but he seeks to avail of permanent total disability benefit. Under Section 2 Rule VII of the Amended Rules on Employees Compensation, a disability is total and permanent if as a result of the injury or sickness, the employee is unable to perform any gainful occupation for a continuous period exceeding 120 days; and a disability is partial and permanent if as a result of the injury or sickness, the employee suffers a permanent partial loss of the use of any part of his body. We held in Vicente vs. Employees Compensation Commission9 that:

x x x the test of whether or not an employee suffers from permanent total disability is a showing of the capacity of the employee to continue performing his work notwithstanding the disability he incurred. Thus, if by reason of the injury or sickness he sustained, the employee is unable to perform his customary job for more than 120 days and he does not come within the coverage of Rule X of the Amended Rules on Employees Compensability (which, in more detailed manner, describes what constitutes temporary total disability), then the said employee undoubtedly suffers from permanent total disability regardless of whether or not he loses the use of any part of his body.

Disability is intimately related to ones earning capacity. It should be understood less on its medical significance but more on the loss of earning capacity.In Gonzaga vs. Employees Compensation Commission, the Court characterized permanent total disability as:

x x x disablement of an employee to earn wages in the same kind of work, or work of a similar nature that she was trained for, or accustomed to perform, or any kind of work which a person of her mentality and attainment could do. It does not mean an absolute helplessness but rather an incapacity to perform gainful work which is expected to be permanent. Total disability does not require that the employee be absolutely disabled, or totally paralyzed. What is necessary is that the injury must be such that she cannot pursue her usual work and earn therefrom.

Applying the foregoing standards, we find petitioner entitled to permanent total disability benefit under the law. Petitioner has been employed as bag piler for twenty (20) years at the Central Azucarera de Tarlac. His duties require him to carry heavy loads of refined sugar and to perform other manual work. Since his work obviously taxes so much on his back, his illness which affects his lumbar spine renders him incapable of doing his usual work as bag piler. Hence, his disability to perform his regular duties may be considered total and permanent.

Contrary to the assertion of the Court of Appeals, there is nothing in the law that prohibits the conversion of permanent partial disability benefit to permanent total disability benefit if it is shown that the employees ailment qualifies as such. Furthermore, the grant of permanent total disability benefit to an employee who was initially compensated for permanent partial disability but is found to be suffering from permanent total disability would not be prejudicial to the government to give it reason to deny the claim. The Court has in fact allowed in the past the conversion of permanent partial disability benefit to permanent total disability benefit. These rulings are consistent with the primary purpose of PD 626, that is, to provide meaningful protection to the working class against the hazards of disability, illness and other contingencies resulting in the loss of income, as well as the Constitutional mandate to afford full protection to labor.