Leonardo  Alia, who had been hired by petitioner company  to  mend  sugar sacks at P4.00 a day, was injured while engaged in that work on board a freighter on March 19,  1954 when a sack of sugar  fell on him as it was being hoisted in a cargo net into the ship's hold.  Examined by both the company physician and the medical officer of the Workmen's  Compensation Commission, he was  found to have  suffered "fracture of the pubis  ischium and  slight bladder injury."  He was given free medicine and medical treatment in the company hospital until his discharge there from  on May 13, 1954, and for the time he  was totally disabled for work 31% weeks he was  paid by the company  a compensation  equivalent to 60 %  of  his average weekly wages.   While  still being paid such compensation, he filed with the Workmen's Compensation Commission on August of that same year notice of injury and claim for additional compensation.  At first  the Commissioner declared  him entitled (1) to medical  supplies and hospital services, (2) to 60% of his average weekly wages for the 31-6/7 weeks he was incapacitated for labor,  or P458.74, as  compensation for temporary total  disability, and  (3) to 50% of 60% of his average weekly wages for 208 weeks, or P1,497.60, as compensation  for  permanent  partial disability.   But upon reconsideration,  the Commissioner  reduced the compensation for permanent  partial  disability to 50% of  50 %  of the laborer's weekly wages for 208 weeks, or P1,248.00.   Not satisfied with this reduction, the company brought the case here for review by certiorari, contending that the compensation awarded for permanent partial disability was excessive.

Petitioner  company claims  that  the  disability suffered by the injured employee should not be considered permanent because the medical certificate  dated September 9, 1955, issued jointly  by its physician  and  the  Commission's  own medical officer does not say so, while on the other hand the statement made therein "that at  present this laborer is disabled to the  extent of 50%  N.S.D." implies that his disability is only  temporary.   The claim is untenable.  The certificate mentioned refers to the extent of the disability and not to its  duration and does  not  necessarily  impugn the finding  of  the Commissioner,  based on the estimate of the medical officer of the Commission and supported by a certificate  issued by the company's own physician  that the disability is permanent.

It is further  contended that if the injured laborer  is at all entitled to compensation for a permanent partial disability such  compensation should  be  payable only from November 1, 1955, the day following the  cessation of his temporary total disability, to  December 31, 1955,  the day before he found  a new  employment  with the Nasugbu Watchmen  Agency at a higher salary.  But  this alleged new employment does not appear to have been  duly established and, indeed, even supposing it to be true, that fact would not in itself necessarily  affect  the laborer's claim for compensation for a permanent partial  disability.   An injured laborer's incapacity for work is not to be measured solely by the wages he receives, or his earnings, after the injury, since the  amount of such wages or earnings  may be affected by  various extraneous matters or factors  (58 Am. Jur. 780-781)  As noted in the  American Law Reports, "there are a number of possible explanations of the fact that an  employee who receives higher wages after an injury than what he earned before may still have suffered an impairment of earning capacity.  Thus, it may indicate: (1) that the employee is the beneficiary of a mere gratuity and does not  actually 'earn' his wages;  (2)  that the  employee,  by education and  training,  has fitted himself for more remunerative employment; (3)  that the  employee works longer hours  than  he did before his injury, his hourly remuneration having increased; (4) that  a general change  in wage scales has taken place for  the type of work or in the  industry;  (5) that the new wages are intended as an inducement to him to  refrain from pursuing a claim;  (6)  that the employee, before his  injury,  was younger or a minor;  (7) that the employment  in  which the employee  was  employed after the injury was of uncertain  duration."  (149 ALE 438, citing cases.)

Citing section 17 of the Workmen's Compensation  Act, which fixes a schedule of compensation for the loss of  specified parts of the body or  their use,  petitioner company also claims that the award of compensation for 208  weeks for a permanent partial  disability is excessive "for the reason", so it says, "that the compensation for disabilities which arise from losses  of parts of the body where are more important to  the employee than a bone in the pelvic wing is  payable for a relatively  shorter period."  Again, we find  the contention  without  merit.  The penultimate paragraph of section  18  of the Workmen's  Compensation Act,  relied  upon by the Commissioner in awarding compensation for a permanent partial disability to the herein injured employee reads:

"In  all other cases of  this kind of disability not mentioned in other sections of this Act, the compensation shall be fifty per  centum of the difference between the average weekly wages of the injured person and his  subsequent earning capacity in these same or  some other employment,  payable while the  partial  disability lasts; but subject to reconsideration of the degree of impairment by the Commissioner at the request of an interested party: Provided, however, that the weekly payment shall in no case be continued for period longer than  two hundred  and  eight weeks."

The applicability of the above provision to the kind of injury sustained in this case in not disputed, and the provision, as will be noted, authorizes a maximum of 208 weeks' compensation for such  injury.  The period may be longer than those  authorized for more serious injuries under section 17,  but from this  it  does not necessarily follow that the injured laborer will  receive more compensation if he is granted  a longer period  under  the above provision of section 18 than what he will get for a lesser period under section 17.   For whereas under section 17 the compensation allowed  is  50%  of his  average weekly wages,  under the above-quoted paragraph of section 18  the compensation authorized  is only 50%  of the difference between his ave- rage weekly wages before the injury and his subsequent earning  capacity in the same or some other employment.

As to the contention  that the compensation for temporary total  disability  already paid to the  employee should be deducted from his compensation for permanent partial disability, it is  now settled that an injured employee may recover compensation for both temporary total and permanent partial disability.   As  was said by this Court in the case of Cañete vs. Insular Lumber Co., 61 Phil. 592

* *  *   The object of  the law in allowing compensation during temporary disability is to compensate the laborer for what he might have earned  during the period of the treatment of his  injury.  On the other hand the object of the law in granting compensation for a permanent disability is to compensate  the injured laborer for tile actual  and permanent loss of a member of the body.

"In  other  jurisdiction where  the workmen's  compensation  acts provide compensation for different  disabilities resulting from an injury, covered by said acts,  the court have consistently held that tho injured workman is entitled to the compensation provided for  each disability.

" 'Temporary, as distinguished from permanent, disability, under the Workmen's Compensation Act, is a condition that, exists until the injured workman is as far restored as the permanent character of the injuries will permit.   So, where, after the period of temporary total disability had ceased, an employee was found to be suffering from a permanent partial  disability, he was entitled to an award based upon partial disability permanent in character.  (Vishney vs. Empire Steel & Iron Co., 87 N..I.L., 481; 95 At., 143)

" 'The claimant was awarded  compensation for temporary  total disability, based  upon  loss of  earning capacity.  Later, an award was made for permanent partial disability as provided  in "other cases",  based upon loss  of  earning capacity.  The employer  contended that  since both awards were based upon  a  loss  of earning capacity, he  would be given credit for the compensation paid under the temporary total disability  award.   The  court held  the intent of the compensation law was that the claimant was entitled to the prior award  for  temporary total disability in addition to any  sum paid for permanent partial  disability/  (Simpson  Fell Oil Co.  vs. Tucker  (OH.)  12 P. (2)  529 June, 1932.)."

The above  ruling was reiterated in the case of Yarcia vs. Philipipne Education Co.  and Elser, 62 Phil. 634, and  we now see no reason for  repudiating it.

With respect to the claim that the combined total of  the period  of compensation for temporary total disability and that for permanent partial disability in this case should not exceed  208 weeks, it will be noted that while the provisions of  the  Act covering  the  other kinds of disability limit the total compensable  period to  208 weeks,  section 18, which is the one applicable in the present case, contains no such limitation.   As a matter of fact the last paragraph thereof provides that award may be reopened and modified "with a view to extending,  if necessary, the period of compensation"  provided the total compensation to be paid does not exceed  P4,000.

In view of the foregoing, the decision appealed from is affirmed, with costs against the petitioner.

Paras, C. J., Bengzon, Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L.,  and Endencia, JJ., concur.