G.R. No. 59872 - Mauro G. Meris vs. Employees' Compensation Commission

Manila

FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 59872 August 24, 1990

MAURO G. MERIS,petitioner,
vs.
EMPLOYEES' COMPENSATION COMMISSION and GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM,respondents.

Antonio V. Merris for petitioner.

NARVASA,J.:

The petitioner served in the Government as Deputy, and Branch Clerk of Court from 1958 until his retirement in 1979 at the age of sixty-three. He was paid by the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) retirement gratuity in the amount of P33,231.89 and assured of a monthly pension of P645.64 for life.1Furthermore, on account of an ailment diagnosed as hypertensive cardio vascular disease with myocardial infarction, the GSIS awarded him temporary total disability benefits from December 13 to 15, 1978 amounting to P60.00, and permanent partial disability benefits from July, 1979 to January, 1980 in the amount of P4,199.34.2

What petitioner seeks in the appellate proceedings on certiorari at bar3is the reversal of the decision of the Employees' Compensation Commission,4affirming that of the Government Service Insurance System which denied his plea (1) for conversion of his disability from permanent partial to permanent total and for a corresponding adjustment of his benefits, and for (2) additional compensation for cataract.

The record shows that both the GSIS and the respondent Commission considered the evidence submitted by petitioner in substantiation of his claims, including that given by his attending physician, in relation to other proofs and information obtainable from known medical authorities on the subjects.ℒαwρhi৷On the basis of their study and analyses of said evidence, both public respondents came to the conclusion (a) that petitioner's disability was indeed permanent partial, not permanent total, and (b) that his eye ailment, characterized assenile cataract,was not compensable, old age being the predisposing factor therefor and said affliction not being attributable to any excessive strain on his eyes resulting from the nature of his work. These conclusions are factual; hence, by familiar rule, they are not reviewable by this Court. In any event, the Court has not been cited to any other evidence or argument of any cogency to warrant a reversal of the contested decisions.

WHEREFORE,the petition for review on certiorari isDENIED,and the Decision of the respondent Commission isAFFIRMED.No pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED.

Cruz, Gancayco, Griño-Aquino and Medialdea, JJ., concur.

Footnotes