This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2004-06-03 |
YNARES-SATIAGO, J. |
||||
| We take our bearings from our pronouncements in the case of Consorcia F. Manuzon v. Employees' Compensation Commission, et al.,[11] In said case, the Employees' Compensation Commission denied petitioner's claim because the cause of death of her husband, an assistant professor at the Mindanao State University, which was myocardial infraction, came four and one half years after his retirement. We held:We believe otherwise. The evidence clearly shows that during his employment, the deceased suffered from a stroke, a cardio vascular accident. It was caused by thrombosis or blockage of the arteries. He had to retire because of paralysis caused by that cardio vascular attack or myocardial infraction. Stated otherwise, the cause of his compulsory retirement due to paralysis arising from cardio vascular accident is closely related to the cause of his death, which was also a cardio vascular attack or myocardial infraction. That heart disease developed when he was still working as a professor. It caused his paralysis and his total permanent disability. The disease was work oriented because of the nature of his employment as a professor. The same disease eventually caused his death, contrary to the conclusion of both the GSIS and the Employees' Compensation Commission. The Court holds that the heirs of Mr. Manuzon are entitled to the benefits they are claiming.[12] In the instant case, the wife of the respondent died a year after her retirement. Clearly, the period between her retirement and demise was less than one year. Indeed, if a death which occurred almost four and one half years after retirement was held to be within the coverage of the death benefits under PD 626, as in the Manuzon case, with more reason should a death which occurred within one year after retirement be considered as covered under the same law. A claim for benefit for such death cannot be defeated by the mere fact of separation from service.[13] | |||||