June 1963 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1963 > June 1963 Decisions >
G.R. No. L-18388 June 28, 1963 - MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.,:
EN BANC
[G.R. No. L-18388. June 28, 1963.]
MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY, Petitioner, v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL., Respondents.
The Government Corporate Counsel for Petitioner.
Pedro L. Flores for Respondents.
SYLLABUS
1. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION; ILLNESS CONTRACTED AND AGGRAVATED BY THE NATURE OF EMPLOYEE’S WORK; TUBERCULOSIS CONTRACTED BY TRAIN CONDUCTOR. — The deceased was employed by the Manila Railroad Company as brakeman from January 16, 1929 to September 30, 1929. He was dismissed from the service on January 1, 1931. On January 1, 1936, he was re-employed as assistant train conductor and continued as such until December 8, 1941. On April 1, 1946, he was re-employed as brakeman until September 15, 1948, when he was employed as assistant train conductor up to October 3, 1957, when he died. As assistant train conductor his duties were to revise passenger tickets, to attend to the signalling of the engine man both while the train was in motion as well as when the train was to depart; to see that the brakes were in good condition; to help the passengers carry their luggages in boarding the train as well as in disembarking; to load and unload baggages and merchandise in the freight train; and to travel by night under all kinds of weather conditions. He was not given any pre-employment X-ray examination and so he was presumed to be physically fit and free from tuberculosis. On April 1, 1957, he applied for optional retirement on the ground of physical disability alleging that one of his lungs was afflicted with tuberculosis. He was extended medical treatment by the company and was given leave of absence without pay from June 2 to September 30, 1957. He was treated in the Quezon Institute on October 3, 1957 where he was found suffering moderately from tuberculosis, and on that same date he died. Held: The deceased contracted tuberculosis during his employment as train conductor, and his sickness was aggravated by the nature of the work undertaken by him which finally resulted in his death.
2. ID.; ID.; ID.; RECOVERY OF COMPENSATION BARRED IF NO CLAIM IS FILED WITHIN THREE MONTHS AFTER DEATH. — The provision in Section 24 of Act 3428 to the effect that in case of an employee’s death the claim for compensation should be made not later than 3 months after death, is a condition precedent for the filing of a claim, and, hence, non- compliance therewith, like in the case at bar where the complaint was filed 20 months after the death of the deceased, is a bar to recovery of compensation.
2. ID.; ID.; ID.; RECOVERY OF COMPENSATION BARRED IF NO CLAIM IS FILED WITHIN THREE MONTHS AFTER DEATH. — The provision in Section 24 of Act 3428 to the effect that in case of an employee’s death the claim for compensation should be made not later than 3 months after death, is a condition precedent for the filing of a claim, and, hence, non- compliance therewith, like in the case at bar where the complaint was filed 20 months after the death of the deceased, is a bar to recovery of compensation.
D E C I S I O N
BAUTISTA ANGELO, J.:
Cesarea A. Marcelo, in her behalf and in that of her minor children Estelita, Eduardo, Maria Zenaida and Romeo, filed on September 28, 1959 with the Regional Office No. 4 of the Department of Labor a complaint for compensation arising from the death of Domingo Punzal, their husband and father respectively, who died of pulmonary tuberculosis contracted and aggravated while in the employ of the Manila Railroad Company as assistant train conductor.
The company controverted the claim on several grounds, namely, (1) the deceased contracted tuberculosis not because of the nature of his employment but due to his poor health and lack of care of his body; (2) the company has always provided all means necessary to protect the health of its employees but the deceased failed to avail of them (3) after separation from the service an employee is no longer entitled to medical treatment; (4) an employer is not an insurer of the life and health of its employees; (5) the claim has already prescribed; (6) the company has already settled in full whatever claim may be due the deceased; and (7) the claim states no valid cause of action.
After hearing on the merits, Juan N. Gerardo, hearing officer, rendered decision dismissing the complaint for lack of merit having found that the deceased died of a cause independent of his employment and not arising in the course thereof.
Claimants filed a petition for review with the Workmen’s Compensation Commission, and on March 9, 1961, Associate Commissioner Cesareo Perez rendered decision reversing that of the hearing officer, holding that the illness of the deceased was aggravated by the nature of his work as train conductor, and so he ordered the company to pay the claimants the sum of P3,455.71 as death benefits, to reimburse them the sum of P200.00 for burial expenses, to pay the amount of P259.18 as attorney’s fees, and pay the Commission the sum of P35.00 as fees pursuant to law. Its motion for reconsideration having been denied, the company interposed the present petition for review.
Domingo Punzal, husband and father respectively of the claimants, was employed by the Manila Railroad Company as brakeman from January 16, 1929 to September 30, 1929. He was dismissed from the service on January 1, 1931. Seven years later, or on January 1, 1936, he was re- employed as assistant train conductor who continued as such up to December 8, 1941. On April 1, 1946, he was re-employed as brakeman until September 15, 1948. From this date up to October 3, 1957, when he died, he was employed as assistant train conductor. As assistant train conductor his duties were to revise passenger tickets, to attend to the signaling of the engine man both while the train is in motion as well as when the train is to depart; to see that the brakes are in good condition; to help the passengers carry their luggages in boarding the train as well as in disembarking; to load and unload baggages and merchandise in the freight train; and to travel by night under all kinds of weather conditions. He was not given any pre-employment X-ray examination and so he was presumed to be physically fit and free from tuberculosis. On April 1, 1957, he applied for optional retirement on the ground of physical disability alleging that one of his lungs was afflicted with tuberculosis. He was extended medical treatment by the company and in fact he was given leave of absence without pay from June 2 to September 30, 1957. He was treated in the Quezon Institute on October 3, 1957 where he was found suffering moderately from tuberculosis, and on that same date he died.
From the facts found by the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner there is no doubt that the deceased contracted tuberculosis during his employment as train conductor in the Manila Railroad Company and that sickness was aggravated due to the nature of the work undertaken by him which finally brought him to his grave. The record, however, shows that the deceased died on October 3, 1957, and yet the present complaint was filed by his heirs only on September 28, 1959, or more than 20 months from the death of the deceased. This is contrary to what Section 24 of Act 3428 provides to the effect that no compensation under the law shall prosper unless the claim for compensation, in case of death, is made not later than 3 months after death. In a recent case, this Court said: "This section establishes a condition precedent to the maintenance of any compensation proceeding under the Act. It requires previous notice of the injury or sickness as well as previous claim for compensation within a period fixed in either case. Non-compliance with that requirement bars recovery for compensation" (Luzon Stevedoring Company v. Hon. Cesareo de Leon, Et Al., L-9521, November 28, 1959).
It is clear, therefore, that the claimants failed to comply with the condition precedent for the filing of their claim, and, hence, non-compliance therewith is a bar to recovery of compensation.
It is, therefore, with regret that we have to reverse the decision of respondent Commission, without pronouncement as to costs.
Padilla, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Paredes, Dizon, Regala and Makalintal, JJ., concur.
Bengzon, C.J., took no part.
The company controverted the claim on several grounds, namely, (1) the deceased contracted tuberculosis not because of the nature of his employment but due to his poor health and lack of care of his body; (2) the company has always provided all means necessary to protect the health of its employees but the deceased failed to avail of them (3) after separation from the service an employee is no longer entitled to medical treatment; (4) an employer is not an insurer of the life and health of its employees; (5) the claim has already prescribed; (6) the company has already settled in full whatever claim may be due the deceased; and (7) the claim states no valid cause of action.
After hearing on the merits, Juan N. Gerardo, hearing officer, rendered decision dismissing the complaint for lack of merit having found that the deceased died of a cause independent of his employment and not arising in the course thereof.
Claimants filed a petition for review with the Workmen’s Compensation Commission, and on March 9, 1961, Associate Commissioner Cesareo Perez rendered decision reversing that of the hearing officer, holding that the illness of the deceased was aggravated by the nature of his work as train conductor, and so he ordered the company to pay the claimants the sum of P3,455.71 as death benefits, to reimburse them the sum of P200.00 for burial expenses, to pay the amount of P259.18 as attorney’s fees, and pay the Commission the sum of P35.00 as fees pursuant to law. Its motion for reconsideration having been denied, the company interposed the present petition for review.
Domingo Punzal, husband and father respectively of the claimants, was employed by the Manila Railroad Company as brakeman from January 16, 1929 to September 30, 1929. He was dismissed from the service on January 1, 1931. Seven years later, or on January 1, 1936, he was re- employed as assistant train conductor who continued as such up to December 8, 1941. On April 1, 1946, he was re-employed as brakeman until September 15, 1948. From this date up to October 3, 1957, when he died, he was employed as assistant train conductor. As assistant train conductor his duties were to revise passenger tickets, to attend to the signaling of the engine man both while the train is in motion as well as when the train is to depart; to see that the brakes are in good condition; to help the passengers carry their luggages in boarding the train as well as in disembarking; to load and unload baggages and merchandise in the freight train; and to travel by night under all kinds of weather conditions. He was not given any pre-employment X-ray examination and so he was presumed to be physically fit and free from tuberculosis. On April 1, 1957, he applied for optional retirement on the ground of physical disability alleging that one of his lungs was afflicted with tuberculosis. He was extended medical treatment by the company and in fact he was given leave of absence without pay from June 2 to September 30, 1957. He was treated in the Quezon Institute on October 3, 1957 where he was found suffering moderately from tuberculosis, and on that same date he died.
From the facts found by the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner there is no doubt that the deceased contracted tuberculosis during his employment as train conductor in the Manila Railroad Company and that sickness was aggravated due to the nature of the work undertaken by him which finally brought him to his grave. The record, however, shows that the deceased died on October 3, 1957, and yet the present complaint was filed by his heirs only on September 28, 1959, or more than 20 months from the death of the deceased. This is contrary to what Section 24 of Act 3428 provides to the effect that no compensation under the law shall prosper unless the claim for compensation, in case of death, is made not later than 3 months after death. In a recent case, this Court said: "This section establishes a condition precedent to the maintenance of any compensation proceeding under the Act. It requires previous notice of the injury or sickness as well as previous claim for compensation within a period fixed in either case. Non-compliance with that requirement bars recovery for compensation" (Luzon Stevedoring Company v. Hon. Cesareo de Leon, Et Al., L-9521, November 28, 1959).
It is clear, therefore, that the claimants failed to comply with the condition precedent for the filing of their claim, and, hence, non-compliance therewith is a bar to recovery of compensation.
It is, therefore, with regret that we have to reverse the decision of respondent Commission, without pronouncement as to costs.
Padilla, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Paredes, Dizon, Regala and Makalintal, JJ., concur.
Bengzon, C.J., took no part.
