Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=28776:g-r-no-l-45745-august-29,-1988-ireneo-abellera-v-secretary-of-labor&amp;catid=1240&amp;Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 14:28:31+00:00

Document:
IRENEO ABELLERA, Petitioner, v. SECRETARY OF LABOR and PHILIPPINE NATIONAL RAILWAYS, Respondents.
Roberto I. Santos for Petitioner.
Legal Dept., Phil. National Railways for respondent Phil. National Railways.
1.	LABOR LAW; LABOR CODE; ABOLITION OF WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION PROGRAM; EFFECTIVITY EXTENDED TO MARCH 31, 1976. — The denial of petitioner’s claim, filed on December 10, 1975 on the basis of Sec. 4, Rule IV of the Implementing Rules of PD 954 which set a limit on reimbursable medical expenses is incorrect. P.D. 626, which amended Title II of Book IV on Employees’ Compensation and State Insurance Fund of the Labor Code took effect on January 1, 1975. On December 31, 1975, however, P.D. 865-A extended the effectivity of the abolished workmen’s compensation program until March 31, 1976.
3.	ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION ACT APPLIES TO CASE FILED ON DECEMBER 10, 1975; CASE AT BAR. — The petitioner was hospitalized from September 15, 1975 to December 7, 1975. His claim for reimbursement of medical expenses was filed on December 10, 1975. within the coverage of the abovequoted provision of law. Applying the Workmen’s Compensation Act which was the law effective during December, 1975, we rule that the petitioner may still be paid medical reimbursements.
4.	ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; PRESENT CLAIMS MAY NOT BE FILED UNDER THE OLD LAW. — The right to reimbursement, however, does not continue indefinitely into the future. We hold that the present law now governs. No more claims may be filed by the petitioner under the former Workmen’s Compensation Act.
5.	ID.; WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION ACT; OBLIGATION OF EMPLOYER TO PROVIDE SERVICES THEREUNDER EXTENDS BEYOND THE EMPLOYMENT OF EMPLOYEE. — Under the old law, compensation benefits differ from medical and hospital services and supplies. It may be noted that under the old law, Section 13 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, the employer’s obligation to provide these services subsists until the illness is cured or arrested, as long as the illness was contracted during the employee’s employment (Hernandez v. Workmen’s Compensation Commission, 14 SCRA 219). This obligation subsisted even if the petitioner is no longer in the employ of the respondent because Section 13 does not require the existence of an employer-employee relationship as a condition for the employer’s liability (Itogon-Suyoc Mines, Inc. v. Isip, 9 SCRA 199).
6.	ID.; ID.; ID.; SUPERSEDED BY THE STATE INSURANCE FUND. — We, however, reiterate that this law has been superseded by a new scheme. The new scheme of employees’ compensation establishes a state insurance fund built up by the contributions of employers based on the salaries of their employees and applies the social security principle in the handling of workmen’s compensation.
7.	ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; RATIONALE OF NEW SCHEME. — The compensation scheme in the Labor Code was enacted in the belief that it better complies with the mandate on social justice and is more advantageous to the greater number of working men and women (Jose V. Sarmiento v. Employees’ Compensation Commission, Et Al., G.R. No. 65680, May 11, 1988). Certain concepts were discarded in order to restore what the law believes is a sensible equilibrium between the employer’s obligation to pay workmen’s compensation and the employees’ rights to receive reparation for work-connected death or disability (See Sulit v. Employees’ Compensation Commission, 98 SCRA 483; Armena v. Employees’ Compensation Commission, 122 SCRA 851; Erese v. Employees’ Compensation Commission, 138 SCRA 192).
Petitioner Ireneo Q. Abellera was employed by the respondent Philippine National Railways on January 2, 1939 as conductor of the Benguet Auto Line. He was later promoted to traffic inspector.
During the course of his employment, he was afflicted with ulcer and hypertension. When his ailments became worse, he was confined and treated at the Philippine National Railways Hospital from November 26, 1970 to January 7, 1971 and at the Baguio General Hospital from February 2 to 5, 1971. On May 31, 1971, he stopped working and he retired from the service of the respondent company on June 1, 1971 under the provisions of Republic Act No. 4968.
4)	To pay to this Office the amount of FORTY PESOS (P40.00), as Administrative Costs, pursuant to Section 55 of the Act.
In September, 1973, the petitioner fully received the disability benefit due him including the reimbursement of medical expenses he incurred from 1971 to 1972.
On December 10, 1975, the petitioner wrote to the Chief of the Workmen’s Compensation Section asking for reimbursement of the sum of P7,748.47 which he spent for treatment at the Bethany Hospital, San Fernando, La Union from September 15, 1975 up to December 7, 1975. Pursuant to the implementing rules of Presidential Decree No. 954, the records of the case were forwarded to the Office of the Secretary of Labor.
"Under this rule, the right of a sick workman to medical benefits is limited to 208 weeks or to the period covered by the maximum compensation of P6,000.00 whichever comes first, which means that If claimant, as in this case, was already paid the maximum compensation of P6,000.00, said amount shall be divided by the weekly compensation to which he is entitled to determine the number of weeks for which medical reimbursement may be claimed, reckoned from the date disability has commenced.
"Applying this provision to the case at bar, the claimant whose weekly compensation was P48.69 must have reached or exhausted the maximum compensation of P6,000.00 in 120 weeks, a period covering May 31, 1971 (first day of disability) to September 20, 1974. In other words, only those expenses for medication incurred from May 31, 1971 to September 20, 1974 are reimbursable. Expenses beyond this period are for the account of the claimant.
The petitioner now questions the correctness of the abovequoted decision. He alleges that his claim is based on the decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Chief dated December 18, 1972 which was based on Section 14 of Act No. 3428 as amended by RA No. 4119 and which had no limitation as to the number of weeks the reimbursement of medical expenses may be allowed. He further alleged that the application of Section 4, Rule IV of the Implementing Rules of P.D. 954 is "illegal" and it contravenes his vested right to reimbursement given under a judgment which had long become final.
P.D. 626, which amended Title II of Book IV on Employees’ Compensation and State Insurance Fund of the Labor Code took effect on January 1, 1975. On December 31, 1975, however, P.D. 865-A extended the effectivity of the abolished workmen’s compensation program until March 31, 1976.
The petitioner was hospitalized from September 15, 1975 to December 7, 1975. His claim for reimbursement of medical expenses was filed on December 10, 1975. within the coverage of the abovequoted provision of law. Applying the Workmen’s Compensation Act which was the law effective during December, 1975, we rule that the petitioner may still be paid medical reimbursements.
Does it follow, however, that such right continues indefinitely into the future?
We hold that the present law now governs. No more claims may be filed by the petitioner under the former Workmen’s Compensation Act.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 V. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.