Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 186 views

    10 Aguja Vs GSIS

    Uploaded by

    Lorenz Allan Gatpolintan
    The petitioner worked as a janitor and suffered an injury when muriatic acid splashed in his eyes from a fallen bottle while cleaning. His right eye was blinded and his left eye was compromised. He was initially granted temporary and then permanent partial disability benefits. He later claimed additional benefits for permanent total disability as his left eye vision was also deteriorating. The ECC and GSIS denied additional benefits. The Court ruled the petitioner was entitled to conversion of benefits to permanent total disability, as his injury and deteriorating condition arose from the same work-related accident, disabling him from his job.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    10 Aguja Vs GSIS

    Uploaded by

    Lorenz Allan Gatpolintan
    186 views1 page
    The petitioner worked as a janitor and suffered an injury when muriatic acid splashed in his eyes from a fallen bottle while cleaning. His right eye was blinded and his left eye was compromised. He was initially granted temporary and then permanent partial disability benefits. He later claimed additional benefits for permanent total disability as his left eye vision was also deteriorating. The ECC and GSIS denied additional benefits. The Court ruled the petitioner was entitled to conversion of benefits to permanent total disability, as his injury and deteriorating condition arose from the same work-related accident, disabling him from his job.

    Original Description:

    Social Legislation

    Original Title

    10 Aguja vs GSIS

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The petitioner worked as a janitor and suffered an injury when muriatic acid splashed in his eyes from a fallen bottle while cleaning. His right eye was blinded and his left eye was compromised. He was initially granted temporary and then permanent partial disability benefits. He later claimed additional benefits for permanent total disability as his left eye vision was also deteriorating. The ECC and GSIS denied additional benefits. The Court ruled the petitioner was entitled to conversion of benefits to permanent total disability, as his injury and deteriorating condition arose from the same work-related accident, disabling him from his job.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    186 views1 page

    10 Aguja Vs GSIS

    Uploaded by

    Lorenz Allan Gatpolintan
    The petitioner worked as a janitor and suffered an injury when muriatic acid splashed in his eyes from a fallen bottle while cleaning. His right eye was blinded and his left eye was compromised. He was initially granted temporary and then permanent partial disability benefits. He later claimed additional benefits for permanent total disability as his left eye vision was also deteriorating. The ECC and GSIS denied additional benefits. The Court ruled the petitioner was entitled to conversion of benefits to permanent total disability, as his injury and deteriorating condition arose from the same work-related accident, disabling him from his job.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Aguja vs. Government Service Insurance System also “compromised” the left eye.

    also “compromised” the left eye. According to the medical certificate issued in
    1985, a pterygium was already growing on the nasal side of the left eye. In
    G.R. No. 84846. August 5, 1991.* such a case, the injury caused on the left eye is considered as work-
    connected; hence, compensable.
    JESUS D. AGUJA, petitioner, vs. GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE Total Disability; Total disability does not mean a state of absolute
    SYSTEM, et al., respondents. helplessness, but disablement of an employee to earn wages in the same kind
    of work or a work of similar nature, that he was trained for or accustomed to
    FACTS: perform, or any kind of work which a person of his mentality and attachments
    could do.—A person’s disability might not emerge at one precise moment in
    The petitioner, as a pauper litigant seeks the review of the Employees’ time but rather over a period of time. It is possible that an injury which at
    Compensation Commission (ECC) decision dated November 10, 1987 denying first was considered to be temporary may later on become permanent or one
    his claim for additional benefits under P.D. 626, as amended on account of who suffers a partial disability becomes totally and permanently disabled
    his eye injury. from the same cause as in the case at bar. Unfortunately, the petitioner’s
    Jesus D. Aguja worked as a janitor in the Office of the Municipal permanent disability has further deteriorated affecting also the vision of his
    Treasurer in Libmanan, Camarines Sur. While he was cleaning the office left eye. The aggravation of petitioner’s condition arose from the same injury
    toilet sometime in April, 1979, the bottle of muriatic acid he was using or disability. The petitioner was compelled to retire from work on account of
    suddenly fell to the floor, causing the contents to splash all over. Some of the the blindness of his right eye. With the gradual loss of vision of his left eye, it
    acid hit the petitioner’s right eye which caused gradual loss of vision, finally would even be more difficult, if not impossible for the petitioner to be
    culminating in blindness. The petitioner’s left eye was not blinded, but it gainfully employed now. As stated in numerous cases, “total disability does
    contracted “pterygium nasal side with visions of 20/40”, per certification of not mean a state of absolute helplessness, but disablement of an employee to
    Dr. Delfin M. Rosales. Notwithstanding his blindness on the right eye, the earn wages in the same kind of work or a work of similar nature, that he was
    petitioner continued to work but retired finally from service on February 26, trained for or accustomed to perform, or any kind of work which a person of
    1982. his mentality and attachments could do. (Abaya v. ECC, 176 SCRA 507
    On the basis of the accident in 1979, the petitioner claimed for [1989]; Orlino v. ECC, G.R. No. 85015, March 29, 1990 En Banc Minute
    compensation benefit with the GSIS. He was awarded temporary total Resolution, Marcelino v. Seven Up Bottling Co. 47 SCRA 343 [1972];
    disability benefits from September 5 to 29, 1979 and was thereafter granted Landicho v. WCC and Canlubang Sugar Estate, 89 SCRA 147 [1979]) To deny
    permanent partial disability benefit for a period of twenty five (25) months. the petitioner, the benefits prayed for would certainly be contrary to the
    After receipt of the corresponding monetary benefits from the System, the liberal and compassionate spirit of the law as embodied in Article 4 of the
    petitioner asked for additional benefits on the ground of permanent total New Labor Code (Lazo v. ECC, 186 SCRA 569 [1990].
    disability under PD 626, claiming that he was also gradually losing vision of We hold, therefore, that the petitioner is entitled to a conversion of his
    his left eye. This was denied by the GSIS on the ground that he had already disability benefits from permanent partial to permanent total.
    previously received the maximum which could be awarded to him under the
    law. Furthermore, the condition of his left eye which allegedly had normal
    vision did not satisfy the criteria for a grant of permanent total disability
    benefits. ECC also affirmed the decision of GSIS.

    ISSUE: Whether or not the petitioner is entitled to the additional benefits?

    RULING: YES, he is entitled.

    Work-connected injury; The injury caused on the left eye of petitioner is


    considered as work-connected, hence, compensable.—Clearly, from the above
    findings, the petitioner’s left eye is indeed gradually losing vision. The left eye
    was found to be burned which only goes to show that the present condition
    can be traced back to the accident which occurred in April, 1979 and no
    other. There is no showing that there was any supervening event which may
    have caused the blindness of the left eye. Undeniably, the injury was caused
    by the splashing of muriatic acid while the janitor was cleaning the
    government building’s toilet. This accident not only blinded the right eye but

    You might also like