Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1957 > April 1957 Decisions > G.R. No. L-10338 April 30, 1957 - MAGALONA & CO. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSIONER, ET AL

101 Phil 439:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-10338. April 30, 1957.]

MAGALONA & COMPANY, Petitioner, v. THE WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSIONER and PEDRO P. GERONCA, Respondents.

Hilado & Hilado for Petitioner.

Paciano C. Villavieja and Ernesto H. Cruz for Respondents.


SYLLABUS


1. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION; LEGAL CAUSALITY BETWEEN INJURY AND INSANITY CANNOT BE PRESUMED; HEARING ON DISPUTED FACT NECESSARY. — Short of any showing by evidence that claimant’s insanity resulted from his eye injury, many other factors may be surmised to have intervened, not necessarily connected with the eye injury, which could have induced the psychosis. The insanity which comes about after an injury cannot necessarily be presumed to be causally linked. The legal causation must still be established and proved. (Schneider on Workmen’s Compensation Laws, 2nd ed., Vol. I, sections 629 to 632). Hence, respondent Commissioner violated the constitutional provision of due process when he denied the petitioner’s request for a formal hearing on the issue of legal causation between the eye injury and insanity upon which the compensation was computed.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; WAIVER OF RIGHT TO CONTEST CLAIM; CASE AT BAR. — In the case at bar, no claim for compensation based on the insanity was filed; and the record does not show when the claimant’s insanity did begin, and although petitioner had knowledge of the accident, or the injury on the eye, at that time there was no sign of the claimant’s insanity so that petitioner could not file the corresponding notice required by Section 45 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act to controvert such claim based on insanity. Hence, paragraph 2 of section 45 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act is inapplicable to the present case for there is no sufficient fact from which it may be inferred that the petitioner, as employer of the claimant, has renounced its right to controvert the latter’s claim to compensation based on his insanity.


D E C I S I O N


ENDENCIA, J.:


The petitioner seeks the reversal of the order of the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner to pay to Pedro P. Geronca the amount of P2,995.20 together with the sum of P30 as fee required by section 55 of the Workmen’s Compensation Law, for the injuries suffered by Jorge Geronca while he was working as a mechanic helper in the automobile repair shop run and operated by the herein petitioner.

It appears that on May 16, 1954, while Jorge Geronca was working in the aforesaid shop hammering the spindle pin of a truck, a piece of steel flew off, pierced his left eye and became imbedded in his posterior eyeball. He was immediately given emergency treatment by Dr. Eduardo Garcia, the petitioner’s physician, and was able thereafter to continue working. However, on June 10, 1954, he stopped working because of diminishing vision of his injured eye and was immediately sent to Manila at the petitioner’s expense for specialized treatment. In that city, he was confined at the Singian Clinic from June 16, to July 14, 1954, under the care of Dr. Carlos Sevilla who removed the foreign body from his injured eye. Thereafter, while he was recovering from the operation of his eye, he developed psychosis and had to be confined in the National Psychopathic Hospital.

On April 21, 1955, the manager of the petitioner company received a letter-computation, dated March 21, 1955, from respondent Commissioner Cesareo P. de Leon, wherein he was held liable for compensation under sections 14 and 15 of the aforementioned Act for the claimant’s permanent total disability (insanity resulting from his injury) and ordered to pay to said claimant the total sum of P2,995.20. In that letter he was adverted that if after fifteen (15) days from receipt thereof the Commissioner did not hear from petitioner, it shall be presumed that the latter is in full accord with the letter-computation and the same will be entered as the final decision on the case.

On April 28, 1955, petitioner replied to respondent Commissioner thru a letter, the most pertinent portions of which read as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"We make reference to your letter of March 21, 1955, copy of which was received by our client, Magalona Motor Co., on April 21, 1955, relative to the claim for compensation of the above named laborer. We must disagree with the views expressed therein, with all due respect, most especially with your finding our said client liable for compensation for total permanent disability (insanity resulting from his injury) of the said worker and assessing compensation on the basis thereof.

"While our said client is not minded to escape liability where compensation is legally demandable, still it feels that in view of the exaggerated claim for which it is now sought to be answerable, it has no other recourse but to contest the claim. It is not denied that the insanity of the claimant supervened while recovering from the operation of his eye. But it is certainly and unjustifiable jumping at conclusions for the Honorable Commission to hold that merely on that account the insanity from which the claimant now suffers is compensable illness under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, for which our client is bound to respond.

"In view of the foregoing circumstances, our client is contesting the claim. It is, therefore, requested that the hearing required by law be conducted to the end that our client may be afforded opportunity to present evidence in its favor and against the claim."cralaw virtua1aw library

On July 21, 1955, the respondent Commissioner rejoined and stated in his communication among other things, the following:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Reference is made to your letter dated April 28, 1955, contesting the claim for compensation of the above-named injured laborer of your client, the Magalona Motor Co., on the ground that although, admittedly, his eye injury occurred in the course of his employment, his supervening insanity could not have arisen out of and in the course of same employment.

"We cannot at this stage of the proceedings take cognizance of your opposition to the claim, it being a matter of record that no controversion had ever been submitted to the Workmen’s Compensation Commission within the period provided for by the following pertinent provision of Section 45 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, as amended:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

‘. . . In case the employer decides to controvert the right to compensation, he shall, either on or before the fourteenth day of disability or within ten days after he has knowledge of the alleged accident, file a notice with the Commissioner, on a form prescribed by him, that compensation is not being paid, giving the name of the claimant, name of the employer, date of the accident and the reason why compensation is not being paid. Failure on the part of the employer or the insurance carrier to comply with this requirement shall constitute a renunciation of his right to controvert the claim. . . .’

"The 15-day period mentioned in the last paragraph of our letter- computation was not intended to reinstate your client’s right to controvert but to afford him an opportunity to question our computation as well as the disability rating given to the injured. The compensability of the claim is deemed admitted by your client because of his failure to controvert. This being the case, no further hearing is necessary.

In view of the foregoing, this Commission is of the opinion, and so holds, that your request for a hearing is not necessary. We would request, therefore, that your client be prevailed upon to remit at once to this Office the compensation due the injured in the amount of TWO THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED NINETY-FIVE PESOS and 20/100 (P2,995.20), together with the sum of THIRTY PESOS (30.00) as fee required by section 55 of the Act."cralaw virtua1aw library

On September 15, 1955, the petitioner reiterated its petition for the reconsideration of the computation mentioned above and urged that the same be made merely on the basis of the eye injury sustained by Mr. Geronca, alleging that the latter’s insanity upon which the disputed computation was based cannot be taken into consideration without giving the herein petitioner sufficient opportunity to be heard. This petition for reconsideration was turned down by the Commissioner on January 27, 1956, hence the present appeal by way of certiorari.

Petitioner contends that the Commissioner committed an error in adjudicating Geronca’s claim on the basis of insanity without holding a hearing thereon as demanded by it in its letter of April 28, 1955. Petitioner claims: "that the casuality of the injury in relation to the insanity upon which the compensation was computed can be arrived at only after a hearing. Short of any showing by evidence that there is such causality, many other factors may be surmised to have intervened, not necessarily connected with the eye injury, which could have induced the psychosis. As a matter of fact, the authorities hold the view that insanity which comes about after an injury cannot necessarily be presumed to be causally linked. The legal causation must still be established and proved. In support of our stand, we quote from Schneider on Workmen’s Compensation Laws, 2nd ed., Vol. I, section 629 to 632, as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

‘In October a workman suffered an injury to his thumb, which, due to infection, was slow in healing. He could not work. After Christmas he became very depressed, and began to suffer from neurasthenia and in a few days threw himself under a train and was killed. The court, in denying compensation, said: ‘I think if we were to assent to the very able and interesting arguments which we have heard we should be driven to say that, whereever we find an accident which involves, as so many accidents do, depression of spirits, particularly in the case of a man who had been leading an active life as a laboring man or artisan, depression at being kept from his work and idling about at home, then if neurasthenia and suicide result, they can all be traced directly to the accident. If we were to say that, we should be opening a very wide door; and I think we ought not to do so. I think, as the Scottish court said, there must be some direct evidence of the insanity being a result of the accident - something more than the insanity being subsequent in turn to the accident. The legal causation must be established and proved.’

x       x       x


‘Insanity is not to be inferred merely from the fact that a workman who had received an injury to his eye, and was suffering great pain, committed suicide, although there was no other reason advanced for the act except injury.’"

It is further argued by the petitioner that, having in view all the facts of the case, the Commissioner, in denying its request for a formal hearing on the issue of insanity, violated the constitutional provision of due process of law in that it was deprived of the opportunity to contest the legality and correctness of the disputed computation based not only on the injury in the eye but also on the insanity resulting from such injury.

In turn, the respondents contend that the petitioner has waived its right to show lack of causal relation between Geronca’s insanity and eye injury when the petitioner failed to controvert the right to compensation on or before the 14th day of disability or within the 10- day period fixed by paragraph 2, section 45 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, as amended. Carefully considered, this contention can hardly be maintained, for the letter-computation dated March 21, 1955 was only received by the petitioner on April 21, 1955 and on April 28 it immediately sent its letter of protest, wherein it requested formal hearing about the computation based not only on the injury in the eye but also on the insanity resulting from such injury. And it cannot be pretended that the petitioner lost its right to contest such computation because the same was based not only on the injury in the eye of Jorge Geronca but principally on his insanity, and upon learning of such computation the petitioner filed its protest and demanded hearing thereon. Again, we find that no claim for compensation based on insanity was filed by the respondent Geronca; and the record does not show when the insanity of Jorge Geronca did begin, and although petitioner had knowledge of the accident, or the injury on the eye, at that time there was no sign of Geronca’s insanity so that petitioner could not file the corresponding notice required by section 45 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act to controvert such claim based on insanity. In other words, we find paragraph 2 of section 45 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act inapplicable to the present case for there is no sufficient fact laid before this Court from which it may be inferred that the herein petitioner, as employer of Jorge Geronca, has renounced its right to controvert the latter’s claim to compensation based on his insanity.

We do not lose sight of the fact that under our laws and the policies of our government, the labor laws should be construed liberally in favor of the laborer; but, on the other hand, the fundamental principle of due process of law should be sternly applied alike on both the poor and the rich in order to attain proper justice. Hence, in the present case, we believe that a hearing should be had on the disputed facts about causality of the injury on the eye of Jorge Geronca and his alleged insanity arising therefrom.

Accordingly, the resolutions of the respondent Commissioner, dated March 21 and July 21, 1955 and January 27, 1956, are hereby set aside and a formal hearing is hereby ordered on the issue of legal causation between the eye injury and insanity of Jorge Geronca in order to determine the true compensation that should be awarded to him.

Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Reyes, A., Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L. and Felix, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






April-1957 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-9543 April 11, 1957 - ASUNCION NABLE JOSE ET AL. v. RODOLFO BALTAZAR

    101 Phil 36

  • G.R. No. L-9962 April 11, 1957 - BENJAMIN MACASA, ET AL v. CRISTETO HERRERA

    101 Phil 44

  • G.R. No. L-10483 April 12, 1957 - JUAN B. MENDEZ v. RODOLFO GANZON, ET AL

    101 Phil 48

  • G.R. No. L-9519 April 15, 1957 - EUTIQUIO TORRE, ET AL v. HON. JOSE R. QUERUBIN, ET AL

    101 Phil 53

  • G.R. No. L-9892 April 15, 1957 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO BASALO

    101 Phil 57

  • G.R. No. L-10288 April 15, 1957 - DIONISIA PATINGO v. HON. PANTALEON PELAYO

    101 Phil 62

  • G.R. No. L-9807 April 17, 1957 - PAN PHIL., CORP. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL

    101 Phil 66

  • G.R. No. L-10017 April 17, 1957 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PO KEE KAM

    101 Phil 72

  • G.R. No. L-8862 April 22, 1957 - IN RE: UY TIAO HONG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    101 Phil 77

  • G.R. No. L-9230 April 22, 1957 - ANDRES A. ANGARA v. DRA. JOSEFINA A. GOROSPE, ET AL

    101 Phil 79

  • G.R. No. L-9415 April 22, 1957 - LIGGETT & MYERS TOBACCO CO. v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

    101 Phil 106

  • G.R. No. L-9601 April 22, 1957 - IN RE: PABLO CHANG BRIONES LORENZO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    101 Phil 111

  • G.R. No. L-9811 April 22, 1957 - GEORGE L. TUBB v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL

    101 Phil 114

  • G.R. No. L-9840 April 22, 1957 - LU DO & LU YM CORP. v. I. V. BINAMIRA

    101 Phil 120

  • G.R. No. L-9908 April 22, 1957 - STANDARD CIGARETTE WORKERS’ UNION (PLUM) v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL

    101 Phil 126

  • G.R. No. L-9983 April 22, 1957 - SANTOS O. CHUA v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    101 Phil 130

  • G.R. No. L-10061 April 22, 1957 - ALFREDO C. YULO v. CHAN PE

    101 Phil 134

  • G.R. No. L-10129 April 22, 1957 - PASCUAL ROMANO, ET AL v. CRISOSTOMO PARINAS, ET AL

    101 Phil 140

  • G.R. No. L-10458 April 22, 1957 - VICENTE MIJARES, ET AL v. HON. EDMUNDO S. PICCIO, ET AL

    101 Phil 142

  • G.R. No. L-11146 April 22, 1957 - MARIETA VIRGINIA CRUZCOSA, ET AL v. HON. JUDGE HERMOGENES CONCEPCION, ET AL

    101 Phil 146

  • G.R. No. L-9292 April 23, 1957 - JOHNSTON LUMBER CO. v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS, ET AL

    101 Phil 151

  • G.R. No. L-9460 April 23, 1957 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SANTIAGO UY

    101 Phil 159

  • G.R. No. L-9682 April 23, 1957 - CHAY GUAN TAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

    101 Phil 164

  • G.R. No. L-9843 April 23, 1957 - IN RE: MANUEL YU TONG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    101 Phil 169

  • G.R. No. L-10064 April 23, 1957 - REHABILITATION FINANCE CORP. v. BUEN MORALES

    101 Phil 171

  • G.R. No. L-10754 April 23, 1957 - FÉLIX M. MONTE v. HON. JUDGE JOSE L. MOYA, ET AL

    101 Phil 176

  • G.R. No. L-8293 April 24, 1957 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SALVADOR LUBO, ET AL

    101 Phil 179

  • G.R. No. L-9729 April 24, 1957 - BACHRACH MOTOR CO. INC. v. CHUA TUA HIAN

    101 Phil 184

  • G.R. No. L-9194 April 25, 1957 - CO TAO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL

    101 Phil 188

  • G.R. No. L-9602 April 25, 1957 - IN RE: TEOTIMO RODRIGUEZ TIO TIAM v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    101 Phil 195

  • G.R. No. L-10170 April 25, 1957 - WESTERN MINDANAO LUMBER CO. v. MINDANAO FEDERATION OF LABOR, ET AL

    101 Phil 200

  • G.R. No. L-9782 April 26, 1957 - HILARION CORTEZ v. JUAN AVILA

    101 Phil 205

  • G.R. Nos. L-10123 & L-10355 April 26, 1957 - GENARO URSAL v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS, ET AL

    101 Phil 209

  • G.R. No. L-4962 April 27, 1957 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICTOR BAQUERO, ET AL

    101 Phil 212

  • G.R. No. L-9712 April 27, 1957 - IN RE: ONG HO PING v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    101 Phil 219

  • G.R. No. L-9810 April 27, 1957 - ESTANISLAO LEUTERIO v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

    101 Phil 223

  • G.R. No. L-6713 April 29, 1957 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICARDO DAISIN

    101 Phil 228

  • G.R. No. L-8752 April 29, 1957 - BENITO COSA v. JUAN BAROTILLO

    101 Phil 232

  • G.R. No. L-8957 April 29, 1957 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANDRES O. FERRER

    101 Phil 234

  • G.R. Nos. L-9117-18 April 29 1957

    COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. LOURDES CUENCO, ET AL

    101 Phil 239

  • G.R. No. L-9156 April 29, 1957 - WISE & COMPANY v. CITY OF MANILA, ET AL

    101 Phil 244

  • G.R. No. L-9186 April 29, 1957 - COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. JUAN ISASI, ET AL

    101 Phil 247

  • G.R. No. L-9265 April 29, 1957 - LUZON STEVEDORING CO. v. LUZON MARINE DEPARTMENT UNION, ET AL

    101 Phil 257

  • G.R. No. L-9674 April 29, 1957 - MELECIO ARRANZ v. MANILA FIDELITY & SURETY CO.

    101 Phil 272

  • G.R. No. L-9694 April 29, 1957 - VICENTE VILLANUEVA, ET AL v. JUANA ALCOBA

    101 Phil 277

  • G.R. No. L-9727 April 29, 1957 - MARGARITA TABUNAN v. TIMOTEO MARIGMEN, ET AL

    101 Phil 288

  • G.R. No. L-9855 April 29, 1957 - MELCHOR MANIEGO v. RICARDO L. CASTELO

    101 Phil 293

  • G.R. No. L-9987 April 29, 1957 - GRACIANO INDIAS v. PHIL., IRON MINES

    101 Phil 297

  • G.R. No. L-10573 April 29, 1957 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HON. MACAPANTON ABBAS, ET AL

    101 Phil 301

  • G.R. No. L-10585 April 29, 1957 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MELCHOR D. INTAL

    101 Phil 306

  • G.R. No. L-10688 April 29, 1957 - WILLIAM H. BROWN v. BANK OF THE PHIL., ISLANDS, ET AL

    101 Phil 309

  • G.R. AC-UNAV. April 30, 1957 - In Re Charges of LILIAN F. VILLASANTA for Immorality v. HILARION M. PERALTA

    101 Phil 313

  • G.R. No. L-7820 April 30, 1957 - MIGUEL CARAM, ET AL v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL

    101 Phil 315

  • Adm. Case No. 229 April 30, 1957 - IN RE: DISBARMENT PROCEEDINGS v. NARCISO N. JARAMILLO

    101 Phil 323

  • G.R. No. L-6239 April 30, 1957 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO TAN

    101 Phil 324

  • G.R. Nos. L-8895 & L-9191 April 30, 1957 - SALVADOR ARANETA v. HON. MAGNO S. GATMAITAN, ET AL

    101 Phil 328

  • G.R. No. L-8907 April 30, 1957 - JOSE L. LOPEZ v. BOARD OF DIRECTORS & GEN., MANAGER OF THE NAT’L. MKTG., CORP.

    101 Phil 349

  • G.R. No. L-9110 April 30, 1957 - JOSEFA VDA. DE CRUZ, ET AL v. MANILA HOTEL CO.

    101 Phil 358

  • G.R. No. L-9160 April 30, 1957 - ADRIANO GOLEZ v. CARMELO S. CAMARA

    101 Phil 363

  • G.R. Nos. L-9208-16 April 30, 1957 - MARIA VELARDE, ET AL v. FELIPA PAEZ, ET AL

    101 Phil 376

  • G.R. No. L-9540 April 30, 1957 - SEVERINO MANOTOK v. ELADIO GUINTO

    101 Phil 383

  • G.R. No. L-9637 April 30, 1957 - AMERICAN BIBLE SOCIETY v. CITY OF MANILA

    101 Phil 386

  • G.R. No. L-9638 April 30, 1957 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ADELINA NABALUNA, ET AL

    101 Phil 402

  • G.R. No. L-9823 April 30, 1957 - IN RE: JESUS ISASI Y LARRABIDE v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    101 Phil 405

  • G.R. No. L-9900 April 30, 1957 - YUCUANSEH DRUG CO., INC., ET AL v. NAT’L. LABOR UNION, ET AL

    101 Phil 409

  • G.R. No. L-10056 April 30, 1957 - MANILA SURETY & FIDELITY CO. v. VICENTE S. DEL ROSARIO, ET AL

    101 Phil 412

  • G.R. No. L-10080 April 30, 1957 - DEE CHO LUMBER WORKERS’ UNION v. DEE CHO LUMBER COMPANY

    101 Phil 417

  • G.R. Nos. L-10093 & L-10356 April 30, 1957 - CARLOS J. TORRES v. HON. JOSE TEODORO, ET AL

    101 Phil 422

  • G.R. No. L-10153 April 30, 1957 - PLARIDEL SURETY & INSURANCE CO., INC. v. HON. AGUSTIN P. MONTESA, ET AL

    101 Phil 431

  • G.R. Nos. L-10308 & L-10385-88 April 30, 1957 - MARIA PAZ S. ALBA, ET AL v. DR. HORACIO BULAONG, ET AL

    101 Phil 434

  • G.R. No. L-10338 April 30, 1957 - MAGALONA & CO. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSIONER, ET AL

    101 Phil 439

  • G.R. No. L-10736 April 30, 1957 - EMILIANO ACUÑA, ET AL v. HON. HERMOGENES CALUAG, ET AL

    101 Phil 446

  • G.R. No. L-10771 April 30, 1957 - EDUARDO M. PERALTA v. DANIEL M. SALCEDO, ETC

    101 Phil 452