Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1960 > September 1960 Decisions > G.R. No. L-15454 September 30, 1960 - MANILA RAILROAD CO. v. EMILIANA FERRER, ET AL.

109 Phil 716:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-15454. September 30, 1960.]

MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY, Petitioner, v. EMILIANA FERRER and WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, Respondents.

Gov’t. Corp. Counsel S. M. Gopengco and Atty. Luis T. Mojica for Petitioner.

Gualberto Cruz for Respondents.


SYLLABUS


1. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION; DEATH CAUSED BY SICKNESS CONTRACTED IN THE COURSE OF EMPLOYMENT, COMPENSABLE. — It appears that when the deceased entered petitioner’s employment as trackman he was healthy and physically sound. In the course of his employment he contracted tuberculosis. As the nature of his employment required him to perform strenuous work his sickness was aggravated which subsequently resulted in his death. Held: The death is compensable. The facts that he was found to be suffering from lack of nourishment and that he was living in a small and crowded room are not in themselves conclusive as causing the aggravation of his illness. If at all they are merely contributory (not primary) factors and could not counteract the established fact that the nature of his employment required him to perform strenuous work day and night.

2. ID.; ID.; DEATH CLAIM; ANY PERSON ENTITLED TO COMPENSATION CAN FILE CLAIM. — A death claim can be made by any person entitled to the compensation within 3 months after death, regardless of whether or not compensation was claimed by the employee himself.


D E C I S I O N


BARRERA, J.:


This is a petition to review on certiorari the decision dated February 20, 1959 of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission as well as its resolution en banc of March 13, 1959.

On January 10, 1958, Isidro Mamaril filed with Regional Office No. 3 of the Department of Labor, a complaint alleging, inter alia, that he was employed by petitioner Manila Railroad Company as Trackman from February 1, 1946 up to April 15, 1957, when he was separated from the service due to physical disability; that his said disability was due to his having contracted pulmonary tuberculosis, as per the letter dated January 4, 1957 of petitioner’s principal physician; that as per letter dated March 28, 1957 of said principal physician to petitioner’s chief engineer, he was found to be suffering from "P. T. B. far advanced, right lung, and minimal, left lung," and that said physician recommended his retirement from the service due to physical disability; and that the sickness contracted by him (tuberculosis) "was contracted and caused by his employment" with petitioner and "aggravated by the nature of his employment" as trackman. He prayed that judgment be rendered in his favor, ordering petitioner to pay him from P4,000.00 to P5,000.00 as compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. 1

On January 27, 1958, or 17 days after the filing of said complaint, Mamaril died. On January 30, 1958. respondent Emilia Ferrer, surviving spouse of Mamaril, filed with said Regional Office a petition for substitution of party claimants. On February 4, 1958, she filed an amended complaint.

On January 29, 1958, petitioner filed its answer alleging, by way of affirmative defense, that Mamaril’s illness "was neither caused nor aggravated by the nature of his work, as (its) trackman," and that he contracted the same "from causes other than the nature of his work or employment" with it.

Issues having been joined, the case was heard and, after hearing, Hearing Officer Paulino S. Perez of the Regional Office, rendered a decision holding that "the deceased Isidro Mamaril contracted P. T. B. out of, and in the course of his employment as trackman, and that his ailment was aggravated by the nature of his work; hence, the herein claimants (respondent Ferrer and children) are entitled to death benefits under Act 3428, as amended." Petitioner was ordered to pay respondent the sum of P3,598.40 as compensation, and any amount which she may have spent for the treatment of the deceased.

On August 13, 1958, petitioner filed a petition for review of said decision. On February 20, 1959, the Workmen’s Compensation Commission 2 affirmed said decision of the Hearing Officer, thus:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"DECISION

"This is a review of the decision of the Hearing Officer of Regional Office No. III declaring claimant entitled to compensation.

"The only issue to be resolved in this case is the causal connection of the pulmonary tuberculosis of Isidro Mamaril, with his employment as trackman of respondent Manila Railroad Company for over 11 years from February 1, 1946 to April 15, 1957, inclusive. He died of said sickness on January 27, 1958.

"A perusal of the records disclosed that the deceased as trackman was working outdoors on railroad tracks of respondent (herein petitioner). His work consisted mainly of the inspection of the tracks with in his area of employment. He pulled out overgrowing grass on the railroad tracks and fixed the rails and ties whenever he found them out of order. At times particularly after a storm and heavy rains, he performed strenuous works in the repairs of railroad tracks. While working he was exposed to the heat of the sun and sometimes overtaken by rain.

"The first time Isidro Mamaril was found sick of tuberculosis was in November 19, 1953 when he was examined by the company physician. This examination showed that his tuberculosis in the left lung was active and in a moderately advanced stage. Subsequent examinations made on June 5, 1954, and on April 18, 1956 practically gave the same results. However, on December 3, 1956, the same company doctor found the deceased suffering from far advanced pulmonary tuberculosis in the left lung and moderately advanced in the right lung. In the examination made on March 27, 1957 when the deceased stopped working in the company his tuberculosis in the left lung was still in the far advanced stage.

"In view of the evidence adduced that he performed strenuous work especially after a storm and heavy rains there is a strong indication that the worsening condition of his disease was brought about by the nature of his employment. The deceased must have been sick of tuberculosis long before November 19, 1953, otherwise his illness would not have been in a moderately advanced stage on that date. Notwithstanding the seriousness of his illness the deceased was allowed to continue working up to March 27, 1957, during which period his tuberculosis progressed to far advanced stage.

"WHEREFORE, the decision under review should be, as it is hereby affirmed and respondent ordered to pay an additional fee of P5.00 for this review pursuant to Section 55 of the Act.

"SO ORDERED." (Italics supplied.)

On March 3, 1959, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration alleging, inter alia, that Mamaril’s disease was not aggravated by the nature of his work with petitioner; that the Hearing Officer committed a jurisdictional error by giving due course to Mamaril’s claim, although it was filed beyond the 2-month statutory period for filing the same, that he, likewise, committed a jurisdictional error by giving due course to the claim, despite its motion for dismissal of the case, on the ground that respondent Ferrer was not Mamaril’s wife; and that Mamaril’s living condition caused and possibly aggravated his illness.

On March 13, 1958, said motion was denied by the Commission, in its resolution en banc 3 stating:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"RESOLUTION

"Respondent seeks the reversal of the decision of the Chairman of the Commission which affirmed that of the Hearing Officer declaring claimants entitled to compensation.

"After a careful review of the records of the case, we find as a fact that Isidro Mamaril’s employment as trackman of respondent was causally related to the progress of his pulmonary tuberculosis which subsequently resulted in his death.

"We cannot agree with the allegation of respondent that the Hearing Officer committed ‘a jurisdictional error, tantamount to an abuse of discretion’ when he gave due course to the claim allegedly filed beyond the 2-month period prescribed by the Workmen’s Compensation Act, as amended. The case involves a death claim so that the reckoning of the period in filing it should start from the death of worker. Inasmuch as Isidro Mamaril died on January 27, 1958, the filing of the ‘Petition for Substitution of Party Claimants’ and the ‘Petition to Admit Amended Complaint’ on January 31 and February 13, 1958, respectively, is within the 3-month prescribed period.

"As regards the allegation of respondent that it was jurisdictional error on the part of the Hearing Officer to have given due course to the claim in spite of its motion to dismiss on the ground that claimant widow was not legally married to the deceased worker, the records disclose that there is evidence to establish such marriage. Besides, respondent did not adduce any evidence to the contrary. As a matter of fact, in its petition for review, it stated that it was ‘laboring under the belief that Ferrer was Mamaril’s legal wife, respondent (herein petitioner) did not interpose any objection to the substitution.’ Certainly the failure of respondent to make timely objection to the evidence presented proving marriage of Emilia Ferrer to Isidro Mamaril and adduce proofs in support of its allegation should not be blamed on the Hearing Officer. "IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the decision under review should be, as it is hereby, affirmed.

"SO ORDERED." (Italics supplied.)

On June 12, 1959, petitioner filed with as this present petition for review merely reiterating 4 the grounds relied upon in its motion for reconsideration and disposed of in the resolution just quoted.

We find no merit in the petition. The evidence on record shows that when the deceased Isidro Mamaril entered petitioner’s employment, as trackman, on February 1, 1946, he was healthy and physically sound. As petitioner’s trackman, he was assigned outdoors on petitioner’s railroad tracks. His work consisted mainly in inspecting said tracks within the area assigned to him. He pulled out or cut overgrown grasses which he found on said tracks, and fixed the rails and ties therein, whenever he found them out of order. At times, especially when said tracks were damaged or washed out due to storms or heavy rains, he performed strenuous work in order to repair them. While performing his daily work, he was usually exposed to the elements. He worked day and night, as the exigencies of the service required it. So strenuous, indeed, was the nature of his work that when examined physically by petitioner’s physician on November 19, 1953, he was found to be suffering from pulmonary tuberculosis on the left lung, which was in an active and moderately advanced stage. Subsequent examinations by the same physician on June 5, 1954 and April 18, 1956, disclosed the same condition. However, on December 3, 1956, he was found to be suffering from far advanced pulmonary tuberculosis on the left lung, and moderately advanced on the right. In spite of the seriousness of his illness, petitioner allowed the deceased to continue working as trackman up to March 27, 1957. On this date, he was examined and found to be far advanced in tuberculosis of his left lung. And finally on April 15, 1957, he was separated from the service due to physical disability.

We agree with respondent Commission that the strenuous work performed by the deceased worsened the condition of his disease. The facts that he was found to be suffering from lack of nourishment, upon examination by petitioner’s physician on June 5, 1954, and that he was living in a small and crowded room, are not in themselves conclusive as causing the aggravation of his illness. If at all, they are merely contributory (not primary) factors, and could not counteract the established fact that the nature of his employment as petitioner’s trackman, required him to perform strenuous work day and night, as the exigencies of the service required the same, exposing himself to the elements thereby aggravating his illness which he, undoubtedly contracted in the course of his employment by petitioner. Neither would the fact that when examined by petitioner’s physician after 3 months of continuous work, the sick condition of his left lung remained stationary while his right lung regressed to minimal apparently showing some slight improvement of his condition, defeat his right to compensation. For the fact remains that when he was examined on March 27, 1957, his left lung was found to be so far advanced in tuberculosis that he was recommended for retirement on the following day (March 28) due to physical disability and was actually separated on April 15, 1957, and died 9 months thereafter, on January 27, 1958.

Petitioner likewise, contends that respondent Commission erred in not holding that claimant Isidro Mamaril’s claim is barred having been filed beyond the 2-month statutory period for filing the same.

The contention can not be sustained. In the first place, the records disclose that the employer knew all the time the condition of the health of the employee. Secondly, although Mamaril’s claim (complaint) was filed only on January 10, 1958, or almost 9 months after he was separated from the service by petitioner, the same was converted into a death claim, when on January 30, 1958, i.e., 3 days after his death (on January 27) his widow, respondent Emilia Ferrer filed a petition for substitution as party claimants and an amended complaint on February 4, 1958. Being a death claim, it can be made by any person entitled to the compensation within 3 months after death, regardless of whether or not compensation was claimed by the employee himself. (Sec. 24, Act No. 3423, as amended.) Clearly, the present claim was filed well-within the period prescribed by law.

As to the right of respondent Emiliana (Emilia) Ferrer and her children to the death benefits there is the express finding of the workmen’s Compensation Commission that her marriage to the deceased has been duly proven.

Wherefore, finding no error in the decision and resolution appealed from, the same are hereby affirmed, with costs against the petitioner. So ordered.

Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepción, Reyes, J.B.L., Gutierrez David, Paredes, and Dizon, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. Act No. 3428, as amended.

2. Thru Commission Chairman Cesareo de Leon.

3. With Commissioners Cesareo de Leon and Jose Sanchez concurring, and Commissioner Baens Del Rosario, dissenting in a separate opinion.

4. Petitioner did not file a brief.




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






September-1960 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-12645 September 15, 1960 - JUANA PADRON VDA. DE VALENZUELA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    109 Phil 396

  • G.R. No. L-14179 September 15, 1960 - PERMANENT CONCRETE PRODUCTS, INC., ET AL. v. JUAN FRIVALDO

    109 Phil 404

  • G.R. No. L-13943 September 19, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARCELIANO ARRANCHADO, ET AL.

    109 Phil 410

  • G.R. No. L-13815 September 26, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ELIAS OYCO

    109 Phil 415

  • G.R. No. L-14740 September 26, 1960 - ANDRES SANTOS, ET AL. v. HON. NUMERIANO G. ESTENZO, ETC.

    109 Phil 419

  • G.R. No. L-14939 September 26, 1960 - ELVIRA VIDAL TUASON DE RICKARDS v. ANDRES F. GONZALES

    109 Phil 423

  • G.R. No. L-12298 September 29, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FEDERICO AGARIN

    109 Phil 430

  • G.R. No. L-12906 September 29, 1960 - DUMANGAY GUITING v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS, ET AL.

    109 Phil 436

  • G.R. No. L-13255 September 29, 1960 - COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. JOSE COJUANGCO

    109 Phil 443

  • G.R. No. L-13475 September 29, 1960 - PHIL. SUGAR INSTITUTE v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

    109 Phil 452

  • G.R. No. L-15226 September 29, 1960 - LEE GUAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    109 Phil 460

  • G.R. No. L-10119 September 30, 1960 - RAFAEL LACSON v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    109 Phil 462

  • G.R. Nos. L-10352-53 September 30, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GAUDENCIO MANlGBAS, ET AL.

    109 Phil 469

  • G.R. No. L-11329 September 30, 1960 - CIPRIANO B. MOTOS v. ROBERTO SOLER, ET AL.

    109 Phil 481

  • G.R. No. L-11440 September 30, 1960 - SERGIO F. DEL CASTILLO v. EDUARDO D. ENRIQUEZ, ET AL.

    109 Phil 491

  • G.R. No. L-12030 September 30, 1960 - JOSE J. ROTEA v. FORTUNATO F. HALILI

    109 Phil 495

  • G.R. No. L-12149 September 30, 1960 - HEIRS OF EMILIO CANDELARIA, ETC. v. LUISA ROMERO, ET AL.

    109 Phil 500

  • G.R. No. L-12328 September 30, 1960 - CARLOS J. RIVERA v. TOMAS T. TIRONA, ET AL.

    109 Phil 505

  • G.R. No. L-12353 September 30, 1960 - NORTH CAMARINES LUMBER CO., INC. v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

    109 Phil 511

  • G.R. No. L-12641 September 30, 1960 - EMILIANA C. ESTRELLA v. PUBLIC SERVICE COM., ET AL.

    109 Phil 514

  • G.R. Nos. L-12664-65 September 30, 1960 - ANTONINO LAZARO, ET AL. v. FIDELA R. GOMEZ, ET AL.

    109 Phil 518

  • G.R. No. L-12894 September 30, 1960 - LILIA JUANA BARLES, ET AL. v. DON ALFONSO PONCE ENRILE

    109 Phil 522

  • G.R. No. L-13023 September 30, 1960 - INSULAR LIFE ASSURANCE CO., LTD. v. TERESA DUAT VDA. DE FERNANDEZ, ET AL.

    109 Phil 530

  • G.R. No. L-13283 September 30, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SERAPIO CARUNUNGAN, ET AL.

    109 Phil 534

  • G.R. No. L-13349 September 30, 1960 - MIGUEL GAMAO, ET AL. v. DOMINADOR C. CALAMBA, ET AL.

    109 Phil 542

  • G.R. Nos. L-13389-90 September 30, 1960 - CAPITOL SUBD., INC., ET AL. v. ALFREDO LOPEZ MONTELIBANO, ET AL.

    109 Phil 546

  • G.R. No. L-13417 September 30, 1960 - JOSE B. VILLACORTA, ETC. v. HON. FERNANDO VILLAROSA, ET AL.

    109 Phil 551

  • G.R. No. L-13426 September 30, 1960 - INT’L. OIL FACTORY v. TOMASA MARTINEZ VDA. DE DORIA, ET AL.

    109 Phil 553

  • G.R. No. L-13446 September 30, 1960 - MAXIMO SISON v. HON. FROILAN BAYONA, ET AL.

    109 Phil 557

  • G.R. No. L-13467 September 30, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUAN NECESITO, ET AL.

    109 Phil 563

  • G.R. No. L-13546 September 30, 1960 - GREGORIO VERZOSA v. CITY OF BAGUIO, ET AL.

    109 Phil 571

  • G.R. Nos. L-13567-68 September 30, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROSARIO B. DE LEON

    109 Phil 574

  • G.R. No. L-13582 September 30, 1960 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. CIRILO P. BAYLOSIS, ET AL.

    109 Phil 580

  • G.R. No. L-13686 September 30, 1960 - HEIRS OF JUSTO MALFORE v. DlR. OF FORESTRY

    109 Phil 586

  • G.R. No. L-13912 September 30, 1960 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. CONSUELO L. VDA. DE PRIETO

    109 Phil 592

  • G.R. No. L-13941 September 30, 1960 - ANTONIO A. RODRIGUEZ, ETC. v. S. BLAQUERA, ETC.

    109 Phil 598

  • G.R. Nos. L-13992 & L-14035 September 30, 1960 - MANILA ELECTRIC CO. v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

    109 Phil 603

  • G.R. No. L-14008 September 30, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TRIZON REMOLLINO

    109 Phil 607

  • G.R. No. L-14348 September 30, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CIRIACO YEBRA

    109 Phil 613

  • G.R. No. L-14395 September 30, 1960 - MALAYAN INSURANCE CO., INC. v. CATALINA V. YANDOC, ET AL.

    109 Phil 616

  • G.R. No. L-14497 September 30, 1960 - FELIX PAULINO, SR., ET AL. v. HON. JOSE T. SURTIDA, ET AL.

    109 Phil 621

  • G.R. No. L-14628 September 30, 1960 - FRANCISCO HERMOSISIMA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    109 Phil 629

  • G.R. No. L-14630 September 30, 1960 - LY HONG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    109 Phil 635

  • G.R. No. L-14733 September 30, 1960 - ERLINDA ESTOPA v. LORETO PIANSAY, JR.

    109 Phil 640

  • G.R. No. L-14737 September 30, 1960 - LEONCIA VELASCO v. COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS, ET AL.

    109 Phil 642

  • G.R. No. L-14817 September 30, 1960 - ANDRES G. SANCHEZ, ET AL. v. NORTHERN LUZON TRANS. CO. INC.

    109 Phil 647

  • G.R. No. L-14822 September 30, 1960 - KHAW DY, ET AL. v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

    109 Phil 649

  • G.R. No. L-14874 September 30, 1960 - ANTONIO PEREZ v. ANGELA TUASON DE PEREZ

    109 Phil 654

  • G.R. No. L-14914 September 30, 1960 - JOHN TAN CHIN ENG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    109 Phil 660

  • G.R. No. L-14930 September 30, 1960 - MARLI PLYWOOD & VENEER CORP. v. JOSE ARAÑAS, ET AL.

    109 Phil 664

  • G.R. No. L-15021 September 30, 1960 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS, ET AL.

    109 Phil 667

  • G.R. No. L-15101 September 30, 1960 - IN RE: CHUA TIAN SANG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    109 Phil 670

  • G.R. No. L-15158 September 30, 1960 - JESUS S. DIZON v. HON. NECIAS O. MENDOZA, ET AL.

    109 Phil 674

  • G.R. No. L-15179 September 30, 1960 - TEODORA AMAR v. JESUS ODIAMAN

    109 Phil 681

  • G.R. No. L-15208 September 30, 1960 - ALIPIO N. CASILAN, ET AL. v. SANTIAGO GANGCAYCO, ET AL.

    109 Phil 686

  • G.R. No. L-15266 September 30, 1960 - TAN HOI v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    109 Phil 689

  • G.R. No. L-15274 September 30, 1960 - DOMINGO ALMONTE UY v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    109 Phil 694

  • G.R. No. L-15305 September 30, 1960 - CITY OF MANILA v. ARCADIO PALLUGNA

    109 Phil 698

  • G.R. No. L-15327 September 30, 1960 - FIDEL FERNANDEZ, ET AL. v. HON. GREGORIO D. MONTEJO

    109 Phil 701

  • G.R. No. L-15380 September 30, 1960 - CHAN WAN v. TAN KIM, ET AL.

    109 Phil 706

  • G.R. No. L-15392 September 30, 1960 - REX TAXlCAB CO., INC. v. JOSE BAUTISTA, ET AL.

    109 Phil 712

  • G.R. No. L-15454 September 30, 1960 - MANILA RAILROAD CO. v. EMILIANA FERRER, ET AL.

    109 Phil 716

  • G.R. No. L-15802 September 30, 1960 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. ENRIQUE MAGALONA, JR., ET AL.

    109 Phil 723

  • G.R. Nos. L-15928-33 September 30, 1960 - DIOSDADO C. TY v. FILIPINAS CIA. DE SEGUROS, ET AL.

    109 Phil 730

  • G.R. No. L-16088 September 30, 1960 - LUZON SURETY CO., INC. v. FIDELA MORIN DE MARBELLA, ET AL.

    109 Phil 734

  • G.R. No. L-16226 September 30, 1960 - GUILLERMO REÑOSA v. HON. NICASIO YATCO, ET AL.

    109 Phil 740