Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1978 > May 1978 Decisions > G.R. No. L-45768 May 12, 1978 - DEMETRIO D. MOLET v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-45768. May 12, 1978.]

DEMETRIO D. MOLET, Petitioner, v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION and REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES (Department of Health), Respondents.

Bruno S. Cabrera for Petitioner.

Assistant Solicitor General Vicente V. Mendoza, Assistant Solicitor General Nathanael P. de Pano, Jr. and Solicitor Francisco J. Bautista for Respondents.

SYNOPSIS


While employed in the Provincial Health Office in Virac, Catanduanes, petitioner suffered from attacks of hypertension at various times from 1953 to 1974and was temporarily disabled from work every time he had an attack. He filed his claim for compensation with the Workmen’s Compensation Unit in Naga City which was favorably supported by medical reports of physicians who had atttended to him during his illness, as well as that of the Compensation Rating Officer of the Department of Labor. His employer’s report stated that it was not controverting the claim, admitting that the sickness was contracted while in the discharge of his duties. The Acting Referee dismissed the claim, finding that claimant had not suffered any physical disability to work from the alleged sickness as he always returned to the service after each attack. Claimant appealed the order to the President and furnished copies of his appeal, among others, to the Acting Referee who in turn elevated the records of the case to the Workmen’s Compensation Commission for review. The Commission affirmed the appealed order on the ground that it had already become final and executory and that the appeal was filed in the wrong forum. Hence, this petition.

The Supreme Court ruled that the claim should not be brushed aside on the technicality that the petitioner appealed to the wrong forum, since notice of the appeal was duly served upon all parties thereby causing no prejudice to anyone. The Court disposed of the case on the merits, holding that the sickness was compensable because it was contracted while claimant was in the discharge of his duties, which fact was not controverted and was admitted by his employer.

Decision set aside.


SYLLABUS


1. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION CASE; APPEAL; FILING IN WRONG FORUM NOT A GROUND FOR DISMISSAL IF NO PREJUDICE IS CAUSED. — In the interest of substantial justice, a claim for workmen’s compensation should not be dismissed on the technicality that the appeal was filed in the wrong forum, no prejudice having been caused to any of the parties since all were duly served with notices of the appeal, so much so that the Referee elevated the record to the Workmen’s Compensation Commission for consideration of the appeal.

2. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION ACT; A SOCIAL LEGISLATION. — The Workmen’s Compensation Act is a social legislation designed to help the workingman, in obedience to the social justice guarantee of a Constitutional mandate which should guide all tribunals in resolving workmen’s compensation cases.

3. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION CLAIM; MERITORIOUS IF SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE AND NOT CONTROVERTED. — A claim for workmen’s compensation supported by ample documentary evidence and uncontroverted and expressly admitted by the employer is meritorious.

4. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION ACT; TEMPORARY TOTAL DISABILITY ENTITLES CLAIMANT TO COMPENSATION AND REIMBURSEMENT OF MEDICAL EXPENSES. — In case sickness causes temporary total disability for labor, the employer shall, during such liability, pay to an injured employee a weekly compensation based on his salary plus reimbursement of medical and hospital expenses duly evidenced by proper receipts.


D E C I S I O N


FERNANDEZ, J.:


This is a petition for certiorari to review the decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission in R05-WC No. 129263 entitled "Demetrio D. Molet claimant versus Republic of the Philippines (Department of Health), respondent", affirming the order of the Acting Referee, Workmen’s Compensation Task Force in Regional Office No. V, Department of Labor on the ground that the appeal was filed with the wrong forum and the order appealed from had become final and executory. 1

The petitioner, Demetrio D. Molet, is the administrative officer of the Provincial Health Office in Virac, Catanduanes. On January 15, 1975, he filed a petition with the Workmen’s Compensation Unit, Naga City, seeking to recover from the Department of Health compensation benefits allegedly because he had suffered from attacks of hypertension in 1953, 1963, 1968, 1969, 1972, 1973 and on December 7, 1974. The notice stated that he suffered temporary disability every time he had the attack. 2 Attached thereto was a notice of injury or sickness and claim for compensation dated December 23, 1974. 3

The Provincial Health Officer of Virac, Catanduanes filed an employer’s report of accident or sickness dated December 20, 1974 stating that he did not controvert the employee’s right to compensation and that the sickness was contracted "while in discharge of his duties." 4

The physician’s report on sickness or accident contains the following general remarks:chanrobles virtualawlibrary chanrobles.com:chanrobles.com.ph

"Accordingly, the known first attack of his illness was in 1953. Because of the nature of his office work since his first attack, he is prone to have subsequent recurrence of hypertension and his nature of work aggravated his illness. Aside from this illness, due to the nature of his work from the start of his government service, he is exposed to contract pulmonary infection. So much so, that since his entrance to duty in 1938 up to the present, pulmonary infection is usually expected. The time element is more than enough to acquire the disease and all these aggravated his health to the nature of his.

Sickness: December 7, 1974

Date of-(Accident: _______ , 197_.

(Examination: December 12, 197 —

(SGD.) ILLEGIBLE

Signature of Physician —

EBMC Virac, Catanduanes

Address 5

The Compensation Rating Medical Officer of Regional Office No. 6, Department of Labor, submitted to the administrator of said region the following findings and evaluation of disability.

"Republic of the Philippines

Department of Labor

REGIONAL OFFICE NO. 6

Naga City

7-30, 1975

The Administrator

Regional Office No. 6

Naga City.

In re: Molet, Demetrio Case No. 129263

(Name of Sick or Injured Laborer)

Age: 60 Occupation: Adm. Officer

Employer: Provincial Health Office

Sir:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

In compliance with your letter (Date) a physical examination was performed on the above-named laborer and the findings and evaluation of disability are as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

In a fairly dev. walking, male, complaining of hypertersion since 1953 Findings — 160/90 — 200/120 — X-ray: Koch’s rt. apex, minimal — pulmonary treated — hypertensive — pulmonary minimal — Luz V.

Laynes — Eastern Bicol Med. Center, Virac, Catanduanes.

— other parts of the body normal.

Temporary Total Disability: one year B-occurrence

Temporary Partial Disability: ________

Temporary Partial Disability: 34% N.S.D.

Permanent Total Disability: __________.

REMARKS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: In connection with your request for fairness of your med. reimbursement a total of seven hundred is allowed while emergency treatment from injuries P700 - OA. weekly.

(Sgd.) DEMETRIO D. MOLET

(Signature of Applicant)

(Sgd.) V. R. RAMIREZ M. D.

(Compensation Rating Medical Officer" 6

The petitioner also submitted medical certificates issued on December 12, 1974 by the Eastern Bicol Medical Center, Virac, Catanduanes (Annex "I" and Annex "I-1", Petition) and his approved sick leaves for the years 1963 and 1969. (Annex "J" and Annex "K", Petition, respectively), attesting to the fact than on and off the petitioner had been suffering from hypertension.

Despite the foregoing established facts, the Acting Referee of the Compensation Task Force dismissed the claim for lack of merit in the following:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"O R D E R

DEMETRIO D. MOLET of Virac, Catanduanes filed a Notice of Injury or Sickness and Claim for Compensation seeking to recover from the Department of Health, compensation benefits alleging that he has been suffering from on and off attacks of hypertension which started first in 1953, 1968, 1973 and finally on December 7, 1974. Claimant is the Administrative Officer of the Provincial Health Office in Virac, Catanduanes. In his Notice and Claim, there is however, no showing of the period of disability. It merely mentions that he has suffered temporary disability everytime he had the attack but always, thereafter, he returned to the service. Obviously, claimant has not suffered any physical disability as a consequence of his alleged illness of hypertension. Clearly, claimant is still in the service up to the present. Compensable ailments under the Act, are those which produce physical disability for work or that which impairs the earning capacity of the employee. It is very clear from the records and from the claimant’s allegation in his Notice of Injury that he has not suffered any physical disability from the alleged injury.

In view hereof, this case is hereby dismissed for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED.

Legaspi City, Philippines, November 17, 1975.

(SGD.) ESTRATONICO S. ANANO

Acting Referee

Compensation Task Force" 7

Although the appeal of the petitioner was addressed to the President of the Philippines, copies thereof were furnished to the Solicitor General, the Secretary of Labor, and the Acting Referee, Compensation Task Force, Regional Office No. V at Legaspi City.

The Workmen’s Compensation Commission rendered the following:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"D E C I S I O N

This is a review of the Order of Acting Referee and Workmen’s Compensation Task Force, Estratorico S. Anano, formerly assigned to Regional Office No. V, Department of Labor, to help that Region dispose its cases, which dismissed this claim for lack of merit.

The records show that claimant, upon receipt of the Order of Dismissal, filed an appeal with the Office of the President of the Philippines, and furnished the Regional Office below a copy thereof. Acting Referee Genaro C. Hidalgo in turn elevated this entire records to his Commission for review.

The issue now to be resolved is whether said appeal should be given due course by this Commission, the same having been filed with the wrong Forum.

Section I, Rule 19 of the Rule of this Commission states:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

‘SECTION 1. When and With Whom Filed - A party who is not satisfied with the decision or Order on the merit of the Hearing Officer of Referee may, within fifteen (15) days from receipt of notice thereof, file with the Hearing Officer or Referee having control of the case a petition for the review or motion for the reconsideration of said decision or order.’

As the appeal was filed in the wrong Forum and as it appears that the Order of the Acting Referee below had become final and executory, we find no reason for disturbing or amending the same.

WHEREFORE, the Order sought to be reconsidered, now being final and executory, no appeal having been perfected within the reglementary period, pursuant to the Rules of this Commission, is hereby, AFFIRMED and respondent absolved from any liability under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, as amended.

SO ORDERED.

Quezon City, Philippines,

January 26, 1976.

ORIGINAL SIGNED

HERMINIA CASTELO-SOTTO, M.D.

Associate (Medical) Commissioner

I CONCUR:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

ORIGINAL SIGNED

EUGENIO I. SAGMIT, JR.

Associate Commissioner" 8

The claim for compensation of the petitioner is meritorious. The commission is after all but an administrative agency and it may be safely assumed that the Office of the President properly remanded the appeal to the said commission. No prejudice was caused any of the parties since all were duly served with notices of the appeal, so much so that the Referee duly elevated the record to the commission for consideration of the appeal. The claim should not be brushed aside on the technicality that the petitioner appealed to the wrong forum. In the interest of substantial justice, We consider the appeal to the commission as having been timely filed and now rule on the merits. 9

The Workmen’s Compensation Act is a social legislation designed to help the workingman (ITEMCOP v. Florzo, 17 SCRA 1104, 1110), in obedience to the social justice guarantee of the Constitution. This basic mandate of the fundamental law should guide all tribunals in resolving similar issues involved in the case at bar. 10

The Department of Health, employer of the petitioner did not controvert the claim of the petitioner. In fact, the said employer admitted that the petitioner’s sickness was contracted "While in discharge of his duties."cralaw virtua1aw library

In Dinaro v. Workmen’s Compensation, Et Al., 11 this Court held:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Respondent Commission’s peremptory dismissal of the claim was clear error and must be set aside, since respondent not only had failed to controvert the claim and thereby renounced all non-jurisdictional defenses but had expressly admitted the petitioner’s right to compensation and therefore an outright award without the need of further hearing should have been issued.

Petitioner’s ample documentary evidence in support of his claim is herein above listed shows the utter lack of basis for respondent commission’s gratuitous pronouncement as to the lack of ‘sufficient evidence’ to sustain petitioner’s claim. Considering that the claim was uncontroverted and expressly admitted, there is no justification for respondent commission to impose a new requirement that the physician’s report be verified for it to be considered ‘substantial or sufficient’."cralaw virtua1aw library

The Compensation Rating Medical Officer of Regional Office No. 6, Department of Labor, reported that the sickness of the petitioner resulted in temporary total disability of "one year B-occurrence" and permanent partial disability of "34% N.S.D." chanrobles.com.ph : virtual law library

Section 14 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act provides:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"SEC. 14. Total disability — In case the injury or sickness causes temporary total disability for labor, the employer shall during such disability, pay to the injured employee a weekly compensation equivalent to sixty per centum of his average weekly wage but not less than fourteen pesos per week, except in the case provided for in the next following paragraph. No compensation shall be allowed for the first three calendar days of incapacity resulting from an injury except the benefits provided for in the preceding section; but if the incapacity extends beyond that period, compensation shall be allowed from the first day of such incapacity. Such weekly payments shall in no case continue after the disability has ceased, nor shall be the aggregate sum paid as compensation exceed in any case six thousand pesos. But no award of permanent disability shall take effect until after two weeks have elapsed from the date of injury.

In the case of an employee whose average weekly wages are less than fourteen pesos per week, the weekly compensation shall be the entire amount of such average weekly wages; but if the disability is permanent, the compensation shall be fourteen pesos in such case. In the event that the total disability begins after a period of partial disability, the amount of compensation due for the latter and for any other disability shall not exceed the maximum amount of six thousand pesos."cralaw virtua1aw library

At the time the notice of sickness was filed the petitioner was receiving a monthly salary of P470.00.

On the basis of a temporary total disability of one year B-occurrence the petitioner is entitled to Three Thousand Five Hundred Forty Pesos (P3,540.00) as compensation. He is also entitled to reimbursement of his medical and hospital expenses duly evidenced by proper receipts.

WHEREFORE, the decision of the respondent Workmen’s Compensation Commission is hereby set aside and the respondent Republic of the Philippines (Department of Health is ordered:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

1. To pay the petitioner Demetrio D. Molet the sum of Three Thousand Five Hundred Forty Pesos (P3,540.00) as compensation for temporary total disability for one year B-occurrence;

2. To reimburse the petitioner his medical and hospital expenses duly evidenced by proper receipts;

3. To pay the petitioner’s counsel the amount of Five Hundred Pesos (P500.00) as attorney’s fees; and

4. To pay the successor of the respondent Commission the administrative fees provided by Section 55 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act.

SO ORDERED.

Teehankee (Chairman), Makasiar, Santos and Guerrero, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. Annex "O", Rollo, pp. 52-53.

2. Annex "A", Rollo, pp. 28-30.

3. Annex "B", Rollo, p. 31.

4. Annex "C", Rollo, p. 32.

5. Annex "D", Rollo, p. 33.

6. Annex "H", Rollo, p. 40.

7. Annex "L", Rollo, pp. 45-46.

8. Annex "O", Rollo, pp. 52-53.

9. Philippine Blooming Mills Employees Organization v. Philippine Blooming Mills Co., Inc., 51 SCRA 189, 216.

10. Vda. de Leorna v. Workmen’s Compensation Commission, 73 SCRA 228, 231.

11. 70 SCRA 292, 295.




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






May-1978 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-25265 May 9, 1978 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SOCORRO C. RAMOS

  • G.R. No. L-32547 May 9, 1978 - CONCHITA CORTEZ, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27350-51 May 11, 1978 - WIL WILHEMSEN, INC., ET AL. v. TOMAS BALUYUT

  • G.R. No. L-29217 May 11, 1978 - MARIA CRISTINA FERTILIZER PLANT EMPLOYEES ASSOC., ET AL. v. TEODULO C. TANDAYAG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-32959 May 11, 1978 - JAGUAR TRANSPORTATION CO., INC., ET AL. v. JUAN CORNISTA, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-38663 and L-40740 May 11, 1978 - JOSE BRIONES, JR. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-39958 May 11, 1978 - JESUS D. JUREIDINI v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-41753 May 11, 1978 - JOSE V. HERRERA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-43213 May 11, 1978 - SOCORRO T. AGUILAR v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-43512 May 11, 1978 - ROSALIA VDA. DE RANDOY v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-47570-71 May 11, 1978 - MONARK INTERNATIONAL, INC. v. CARMELO C. NORIEL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-31298 May 12, 1978 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAMON BLANCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-32529 May 12, 1978 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TY SUI WONG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-45768 May 12, 1978 - DEMETRIO D. MOLET v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-47494 May 15, 1978 - AIDA ROBLES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27800 May 16, 1978 - PHILIPPINE CHARITY SWEEPSTAKES OFFICE v. ARSENIO OLMOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-38006 May 16, 1978 - NATALIA DE LAS ALAS, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-47448 May 17, 1978 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EMETERIO C. OCAYA

  • A.C. No. 301 May 18, 1978 - BENITO SACO v. DONATO A. CARDONA

  • G.R. No. L-24375 May 18, 1978 - TAN BENG v. CITY SHERIFF OF MANILA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27155 May 18, 1978 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27732 May 18, 1978 - ANGELES CHIQUILLO, ET AL. v. ELIAS B. ASUNCION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28454 May 18, 1978 - EMILIO APACHECHA, ET AL. v. VALERIO V. ROVIRA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-29276 May 18, 1978 - TESTATE ESTATE OF FELIX J. DE GUZMAN v. CRISPINA DE GUZMAN-CARILLO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-29466 May 18, 1978 - ABOITIZ AND CO., INC., ET AL. v. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS OF CEBU

  • G.R. No. L-34770 May 18, 1978 - SAURA IMPORT & EXPORT CO., INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-40885 May 18, 1978 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARCIAL GARGOLES

  • G.R. No. L-44351 May 18, 1978 - HOECHST PHILIPPINES, INC. v. FRANCISCO TORRES, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. L-1768 May 19, 1978 - ANGELES G. DACANAY v. CONRADO B. LEONARDO, SR.

  • G.R. Nos. L-28324-5 May 19, 1978 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAFAEL MARCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-35093 May 19, 1978 - E.S. BALTAO & CO., INC. v. CHINA BANKING CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-37750 May 19, 1978 - SWEET LINE, INC. v. BERNARDO TEVES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-44537 May 26, 1978 - EMMA C. ONA v. SERAFIN R. CUEVAS

  • A.M. No. 1530-MJ May 30, 1978 - NENITA CASTAÑETO v. BUENAVENTURA S. NIDOY

  • G.R. No. L-32850 May 30, 1978 - ROGELIO LAFIGUERA, ET AL. v. V. M. RUIZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-37162 May 30, 1978 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WARLITO C. PLATEROS

  • G.R. No. L-38375 May 30, 1978 - ALFONSA TIMBAS VDA. DE PALOPO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-29262 May 31, 1978 - SALVADOR BARENG v. SHINTOIST SHRINE & JAPANESE CHARITY BUREAU

  • G.R. No. L-30355 May 31, 1978 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. UNION KAYANAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-31303-04 May 31, 1978 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-37174 May 31, 1978 - LITTON MILLS WORKERS UNION-CCLU v. LITTON MILLS, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-37697. May 31, 1978.

    SEGUNDO ABANDO v. CA

  • G.R. No. L-42713 May 31, 1978 - NORBERTA MARTILLO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-43358 May 31, 1978 - PRESENTACION D. DELANA v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-43811 May 31, 1978 - CAYETANO FRANCISCO v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-44563 May 31, 1978 - GERONIMO REALTY COMPANY v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-47263 May 31, 1978 - HACIENDA DOLORES AGRO-INDUSTRIAL & DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-47536 May 31, 1978 - WILLIAM H. QUASHA v. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, ET AL.