Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1968 > July 1968 Decisions > G.R. No. L-24987 July 31, 1968 - CENTRAL AZUCARERA DON PEDRO v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COM., ET AL:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-24987. July 31, 1968.]

CENTRAL AZUCARERA DON PEDRO, Petitioner, v. THE WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION and PEDRO VILLANUEVA, Respondents.

Arturo E. de Jose and Maximo A. Puyat, Jr. for Petitioner.

Antonio Sobreviñas for respondent Pedro Villanueva.

Villavieja & Arellano for respondent Workmen’s Compensation Commission.


SYLLABUS


1. LABOR AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION; WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION; PRESUMPTION THAT WORKMEN’S CLAIM IS COMPENSABLE. — By statute there is established a presumption that the workmen’s claim is compensable and that presumption places upon the employer the burden of proving that the employee’s injury or illness was not and could not be caused or aggravated by the nature of his work.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; DORMANT TUBERCULOSIS ACTIVATED BY CONDITIONS OF WORK, COMPENSABLE. — Petitioner’s evidence failed to overcome the presumption, considering that claimant repeatedly had to perform night work, which, in itself, by debilitating the body resistance, facilitates the activation of dormant tuberculosis; and the nature of his work — scraping and cleaning the furnaces — compelled him to breathe hot and dust laden air, with unfavorable effects on his respiratory organs. Admitting that the work itself could not introduce the bacilli into his body, still this activation from a dormant state was favored by the conditions of work, and thus gives rise to a compensable injury that entitles the workmen to compensation.

3. ID.; ID.; ID.; DELAY IN FILING CLAIM. — The original ruling to the effect that the delay in filing the claim for compensation should be considered fatal to its success has suffered a gradual evolution and the trend of the more recent decisions of this Court has been to consider the delay a non-jurisdictional defect, unless it is shown that the employer has been prejudiced thereby. This trend conforms to the need of protecting the workman whose inferiority vis-a-vis the employer has always been marked by disadvantage.


D E C I S I O N


REYES, J.B.L., J.:


Certiorari to review an award of compensation to appellee Pedro Villanueva decreed by the Workmen’s Compensation Commission in its Case No. RO5-2334.

The following facts, declared in the decision appealed from, are not substantially controverted:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The records of the case disclose that claimant started working with the respondent company as a "palero" in 1933, after undergoing a pre-employment physical and medical examination. In 1939 he was made a "fogonero" and continued as such until 1946 when he was promoted to "cabo palero", the position he held until July 28, 1961 when he stopped working because of fever, chest and back pains, body weakening and coughing. Claimant alleged that he begun to have said symptoms as early as 1943 and that sometime in 1959, he spat blood while working. The periodic medical, as well as the X-ray examination which started in 1952, made on the claimant during the succeeding years of his employment showed, however, that he was in good health and free from any lung ailment. Claimant was confined at the respondent’s hospital on August 10, 1961 until September 2, 1961, and on November 6, 1961 he was retired from the service, but respondent’s medical treatment of claimant continued up to November 29, 1961. Upon X-ray examination of the claimant by the company physician on September 25, 1961, claimant was found afflicted with minimal pulmonary tuberculosis. Said findings was later confirmed when claimant had himself X-rayed again at the Batangas Provincial Chest Center on December 1, 1961. He had himself treated by Dr. Numeriano G. Presto of Mangaldan, Pangasinan, and allegedly spent P512.00.

Claimant’s work as a "palero" during the milling season was to clean the parrilla and scrape the hardened ashes on the walls of the fogon; as fogonero, he supervised the dropping of the baggasse inside the fogon by staying on top of the fogon assigned to him; and as cabo palero, he supervised the 7 men tending the 7 furnaces, as well as the supply of water to the calderas so as to maintain the required water level. Claimant worked weekly in each of the three shifts (8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.; 4:00 p.m. to 12:00 midnight; 12:00 midnight to 8:00 a.m.). During off-milling seasons, his work was mainly cleaning the fogon, parts of the blower, repainting, and cleaning the pipelines inside the tambor, working every other week."cralaw virtua1aw library

The petitioner Central assails the award primarily on the ground that the preponderant evidence is that the ailment was not contracted as a result of the nature of claimant’s work, and that the claim was presented beyond the period fixed by Section 24 of the Compensation Act.

On the first ground, it must be recalled that by statute there is established a presumption that the workman’s claim is compensable (Section 44, No. 1, Act 3428), and that presumption places upon the employer the burden of proving that the employee’s injury or illness was not and could not be caused or aggravated by the nature of his work (Naira v. WCC, L-18066, October 30, 1962; National Development Co., v. Ayson and WCC, May 24, 1967, 20 S.C.R.A. 192, and cases collated in the appended annotation, at pages 196-197; ITEMCOP v. Florzo, 17 S.C.R.A. 1104).

The only evidence submitted by the employer to rebut the statutory presumption lies in the testimony of claimant that as "cabo palero" his principal duty was to supervise seven furnaces of the "calderas" department; that of Dr. Gerardo Manas, to the effect that there was enough ventilation and "fair conditions of work" in the place where claimant labored; and of Dr. Angelina Gutierrez that without tubercle bacilli in his body, claimant "will not get pulmonary tuberculosis even with the conditions of labor present" (Appellant’s Brief, pages 16-21).

All this evidence fails to overcome the presumption, considering the undisputed facts found by the Commission, that claimant repeatedly had to perform night work, which, in itself, by debilitating the body’s resistance (V. Manila Railroad Co. v. C.I.R., G.R. No. L-3862, August 28, 1951) facilitates the activation of dormant tuberculosis; and the nature of his work, scraping and cleaning the furnaces, that compelled the laborer to breath hot and dust laden air, with unfavorable effects on his respiratory organs. Admitting that the work itself could not introduce the bacilli into the laborer’s body, still this activation from a dormant state was favored by the conditions of work, and thus gives rise to a compensable injury that entitles the workman to compensation (5 Schneider, Workmen’s Compensation Law, page 501).

With regard to the claim that the delay in filing the claim for compensation should be considered fatal to its success, appellant corporation seems to have taken no notice of the fact that the original ruling to that effect has suffered a gradual evolution, and that the trend of the more recent decisions of this Court has been to consider the delay a non-jurisdictional defect, unless it is shown that the employer has been prejudiced thereby (See Century Ins. Co. v. Fuentes, L-16039, August 31, 1961; NDC v. WCC, L-14936, April 20, 1964; and Manila Railroad v. Manalang, November 29, 1965). This trend conforms to the need of protecting the workman whose inferiority vis- a-vis the employer has always been marked by disadvantage (Civil Code of the Philippines, Article 24).

"ART. 24. In all contractual, property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a disadvantage on account of his moral dependence, ignorance, indigence, mental weakness, tender age or other handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection."cralaw virtua1aw library

In view of the conclusions thus reached, it becomes unnecessary to inquire whether the employer has forfeited his right to controvert the claim of the laborer, since even without such forfeiture, there is substantial legal and factual support for the Commission’s award.

WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby affirmed. Costs against appellant Central Azucarera Don Pedro.

Concepcion, C.J., Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Sanchez, Angeles and Fernando, JJ., concur.

Castro, J., did not take part.




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






July-1968 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-24990 July 3, 1968 - WILLIAM C. PFLEIDER v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-24804 July 5, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARCIANO PARAYNO, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-28561 July 8, 1968 - BARNEY FRENCH v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL

  • A.C. No. 102 July 15, 1968 - PAFLU v. HON. EMILIO C. TABIGNE

  • G.R. No. L-21175 July 15, 1968 - PASCUALA SOTTO PAHANG v. FILEMON SOTTO

  • G.R. No. L-18414 July 15, 1968 - ANTONIO M. PEREZ, ET AL v. J. ANTONIO ARANETA

  • G.R. No. L-24843 July 15, 1968 - MEMBERS OF THE CULT OF SAN MIGUEL ARCANGEL v. PEDRO NARCISO

  • G.R. No. L-24419 July 15, 1968 - LEONORA ESTOQUE v. ELENA M. PAJIMULA

  • G.R. No. L-24997 July 18, 1968 - PHIL. NATIONAL BANK v. TERESITA OSETE, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-21027 July 20, 1968 - JUAN GUTIERREZ, ET AL. v. LUCIANO T. CRUZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22002 July 20, 1968 - CANUTO A. LIM, ET AL. v. TOMAS V. SABARRE

  • G.R. No. L-24099 July 20, 1968 - CLOTILDE CORREOS, ET AL. v. LADISLAO VALENZUELA Y PEREZ, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-24951 July 20, 1968 - IN RE: JOSE CHUA CHU v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-26197 July 20, 1968 - ADELO C. RIVERA v. SAN MIGUEL BREWERY CORP., INC.

  • G.R. No. L-18598 July 23, 1968 - TAN GUAN v. HON. MARIANO NABLE, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-22682 July 23, 1968 - GORGONIO PABILING v. ISIDORO PARINACIO, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-23796 July 23, 1968 - LOURDES P. SAN DIEGO, ET AL v. HON. FERNANDO HERNANDEZ, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-23934 July 25, 1968 - HIDPION P. DEL ROSARIO, ET AL v. ABELARDO SUBIDO, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-26353 July 29, 1968 - PERLA C. PACURSA v. SIMEON DEL ROSARIO, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-26568 July 29, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIEGO MALILLOS

  • G.R. No. L-28842 July 29, 1968 - FAUSTINO CORTEZ v. HON. ONOFRE VILLALUZ, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-24955 July 29, 1968 - AMERICAN INSURANCE COMP. v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL., ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-24566 July 29, 1968 - ACCFA v. ALPHA INSURANCE & SURETY CO., INC., ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-24576 July 29, 1968 - MARTINIANO P. VIVO, ET AL v. HON. AGUSTIN P. MONTESA, ET AL

  • G.R. Nos. L-24444-45 July 29, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMEO DORIQUEZ

  • G.R. No. L-24396 July 29, 1968 - SANTIAGO P. ALALAYAN, ET AL. v. NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-24072 July 29, 1968 - ANTONIO MA. CUI, ET AL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL

  • G.R. Nos. L-24020-21 July 29, 1968 - FLORENCIO REYES, ET AL v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-19852 July 29, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MANSUETO JAMERO, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-23133 July 29, 1968 - VICENTE S. DEL ROSARIO, ET AL v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-23606 July 29, 1968 - ALHAMBRA CIGAR & CIGARETTE MANUFACTURING CO., INC. v. SECURITIES & EXCHANGE COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. L-20158 July 29, 1968 - CANDELARIO ALMENDRAS, ET AL v. AMADO DEL ROSARIO, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-21059 July 29, 1968 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-22320 July 29, 1968 - MERCEDES RUTH COBB-PEREZ, ET AL v. HON. GREGORIO LANTIN, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-20619 July 29, 1968 - REPARATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL v. HON. JUDGE HIGINIO B. MACADAEG, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-20794 July 29, 1968 - DY EN SIU CO, ET AL v. LOCAL CIVIL REGISTRAR OF THE CITY OF MANILA, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-23919 July 29, 1968 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. HON. GUILLERMO S. SANTOS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-24984 July 29, 1968 - PHIL. COMM., ELEC. & ELECTRICITY WORKERS’ FED., ET AL v. HON. JUDGE RAMON O. NOLASCO, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-24388 July 29, 1968 - REGAL MANUFACTURING EMP., ASSO., ET AL v. HON. ANDRES REYES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27741 July 29, 1968 - R.B. INDUSTRIAL DEV. CO., LTD., ET AL v. HON. MANUEL LOPEZ ENAGE, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-28524 July 29, 1968 - ERNESTO NAVARRO, ET AL v. HON. TITO V. TIZON, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-24348 July 30, 1968 - FELICIDAD VIERNEZA v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

  • G.R. No. L-22304 July 30, 1968 - SAMAR MINING CO., INC. v. FRANCISCO P. ARNADO, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-22159 July 31, 1968 - EMILIANO CASTRO, JR. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-24472 July 31, 1968 - PHIL. RABBIT BUS LINES, INC. v. PROSPERO GABATIN, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-24924 July 31, 1968 - CRESENCIA ANTONEL, ET AL v. LAND TENURE ADMI., ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-26192 July 31, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LORENZO MANA-AY, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-24414 July 31, 1968 - DIONICIA J. CID, ET AL v. NANCY W. BURNAMAN, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-22663 July 31, 1968 - HOC HUAT TRADING, ET AL v. HON. GUILLERMO S. SANTOS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-23245 July 31, 1968 - JUANITA RIVERA v. SILVINO CURAMEN

  • G.R. No. L-23491 July 31, 1968 - TAURUS TAXI CO., INC., ET AL v. CAPITAL INSURANCE & SURETY CO., INC.

  • G.R. No. L-24140 July 31, 1968 - VICENTE ARRIETA v. MALAYAN SAWMILL COMPANY, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-24557 July 31, 1968 - CITY OF MANILA v. TARLAC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-24668 July 31, 1968 - ANDRES LAPITAN v. SCANDIA INC., ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-24987 July 31, 1968 - CENTRAL AZUCARERA DON PEDRO v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COM., ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-25550 July 31, 1968 - PLARIDEL SURETY & INS. CO., v. HON. W. DE LOS ANGELES, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-27072 July 31, 1968 - SURIGAO MINERAL RESERVATION BOARD, ET AL v. HON. GAUDENCIO CLORIBEL, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-26082 July 31, 1968 - NORBERTO DE LA REA v. HON. ABELARDO SUBIDO, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-27084 July 31, 1968 - ANGELA ESTATE, INC., ET AL v. CFI NEGROS OCCI., ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-22542 July 31, 1968 - LUZON STEVEDORING CORPORATION v. SALVADOR CELORIO, ET AL

  • A.C. No. 122-J July 31, 1968 - NICOLAS SUPERABLE, JR. v. HON. GODOFREDO ESCALONA

  • G.R. No. L-13938 July 31, 1968 - PEDRO BUTIONG v. SURIGAO CONSOLIDATED MINING CO. INC.

  • G.R. No. L-22577 July 31, 1968 - BENJAMIN WENCESLAO, ET AL. v. CARMEN ZARAGOZA, INC.

  • G.R. No. L-23261 July 31, 1968 - ERNESTO VELUZ v. SOCORRO VELUZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23689 July 31, 1968 - MAYO LOPEZ CARILLO, ET AL v. ALLIED WORKER’S ASSO. OF THE PHIL., ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-24514 July 31, 1968 - SAURA IMPORT & EXPORT CO., INC., ET AL v. JUDGE ARSENIO SOLIDUM, ET AL