GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM, petitioner, vs LEO L. CADIZ, respondent.

G.R. No. 154093 July 8, 2003

 Respondent Cadiz was appointed as a Provincial Guard of Negros Oriental in 1968. He was
eventually promoted and absorbed by PNP until he retired as Police Chief Superintendent.
 In 1996, he had a heart attack. He was diagnosed with a unstable agina and chronic atriol
fibrillation which left him with slurred speech and paralyzed left hand. Eventually, he applied
for early retirement to due his ailment that rendered him unfit to discharge his duties.
 In 1999, he retired from service and PNP granted him permanent total disability benefits.
 Cadiz then filed a disability claim with GSIS. The medical officer granted him permanent
total disability (PTD) benefits and temporary total disability (TTD) benefits; however, upon
review, GSIS Pasay ordered the medical officer to modify the recommendation because the
disability did not satisfy the criteria for PTD benefits.
 Thus, the recommendation was revised whereby the TTD benefits were retained, but the
PTD benefits was downgraded to permanent partial disability benefits.
 ECC affirmed GSIS because Cadiz failed to meet the criterion set 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.

ISSUE + RULING: Whether respondent is entitled to Permanent Total Disability Benefits

YES. 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. If by reason of the injury or sickness he sustained, the employee is unable to perform
his customary job for more than 120 days and he does not come within the coverage of Rule X
(category for temporary total disability), then the employee suffers from a permanent total
disability regardless of whether or not he loses the use of any part of his body. Permanent total
disability does not mean a state of absolute helplessness, but means 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 this case, respondent’s entitlement to permanent total disability was established by his medical
records and the very agency he worked for, PNP, which found him unfit for police service. PNP
even retired him at age 55 which is a clear indication that his heart ailment rendered him
incapable of effectively and competently performing his job as a Police Chief Superintendent
without serious discomfort or pain and without material injury or danger to his life.

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.