Forced retirement

When is there permanent total disability for purposes of determining the compensation benefits of a government employee? This is answered in this case of Robert, a police chief superintendent.

Robert started as a Provincial Guard in a Visayan Island Province way back some thirty five years ago. After about six years as Provincial guard, he entered police service and was promoted to several ranks until he became a Police Major. In 1991, he was absorbed by the Philippine National Police (PNP) with a rank of Police Chief Inspector. Then after about another year, he became Police Chief Superintendent. By this time, due to rigors of work, Robert’s health started to deteriorate. In 1996, he suffered a heart attack and was hospitalized from Oct. 12, 1996 to Nov. 22, 1996. He was found to be suffering from a heart ailment characterized by chest pains, palpitation and abnormal beats. Still he continued to work. But his speech became slurred and his left hand was paralyzed rendering him unfit to further discharge the duties of his office. His cardiologist and attending Physician said that Robert’s ailment was chronic irregularity of the heart causing a congestive heart failure. The PNP’s own Medical and Dental Service declared him unfit for police service. Hence on March 19,1999, he was retired from the service at the age of 55 and granted permanent total disability benefits, aside from the temporary total disability benefits during his hospital confinement.

But the GSIS Medical Service Group downgraded the permanent total disability benefit to permanent partial disability benefits compensation for eight months from March 19,1999, although it retained his temporary total disability compensation during his hospitalization.

The Employees’ Compensation Commission (ECC) affirmed the findings of the GSIS. It ruled that Robert was already awarded the maximum benefits commensurate to the degree of his disability. It also said that the primary criterion for permanent total disability – permanent paralysis of two limbs; complete loss of sight of both eyes; brain injury resulting in incurable imbecility; and loss of two limbs at or above the ankle or wrist – has not been met.

Was the ECC correct?

No.

The fact that Robert did not lose the use of any part of his body does not justify the denial of his claim for permanent total disability. The test of whether or not an employee suffers from permanent total disability is the capacity of the employee to continue performing his work notwithstanding the disability he incurred. Permanent total disability does not mean a state of absolute helplessness, but means only disablement of an employee to earn wages in the same kind of work, or work of similar nature, that he was trained for, or any work which a person of similar mentality and attainment could do.

In the case at bar, Robert’s entitlement to permanent total disability was established by his medical records and by the investigation of the very agency he worked for, the PNP, which found him unfit for police service. The decision of the PNP to retire him at age 55 for being unfit for police service is a clear indication that his heart ailment rendered him incapable of effectively and competently performing his job as Police Chief Superintendent without any serious discomfort or pain and without material injury or danger to his life. The early retirement of an employee due to a work related ailment, as in the case at bar, proves that he was really disabled totally to further perform his assigned task, and to deny permanent total disability benefits when he was forced to retire would render inutile and meaningless the social justice precept guaranteed by the Constitution (GSIS vs. Cadiz, G.R. 154093 July 8, 2003).