Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1978 > September 1978 Decisions > G.R. No. L-42896 September 30, 1978 - CECILIA R. PARAISO v. HERMINIA CASTELO-SOTTO:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-42896. September 30, 1978.]

CECILIA R. PARAISO, Petitioner, v. HERMINIA CASTELO-SOTTO and EUGENIO I. SAGMIT in their capacity as Associate Commissioners Workmen’s Compensation Commission, and REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES (DEPARTMENT OF LABOR), Respondents.

Cipriano P. Paraiso for Petitioner.

Josefina D. de Leon (OSG) for Respondents.

SYNOPSIS


Petitioner rendered government service for forty (40) years, first as a public school teacher with the Bureau of Public Schools and later as an accounting clerk and Supervising Apprenticeship Officer with the Department of Labor in-charge of handling and processing all applications for apprenticeship, and safekeeping of all official communications and records of the Office of the Apprenticeship. Her work exposed her to all kinds of people applying for apprenticeship.

Petitioner got sick of PTB, essential hypertension, and rheumatoid arthritis. Due to her illness and upon advice of her attending physicians, who attested that his illness was the result of and aggravated by the employment, petitioner was forced to apply for disability retirement under Section 12(c) of CA 186, as amended by Republic Acts. Nos. 1616 and 4968, at the age of 60-1/2 years. The application was duly approved by the Office of the President. Petitioner’s claim for disability compensation was not controverted by Respondent. The Acting Hearing Officer granted the claim.

On appeal, the Workmen’s Compensation Commission, reversed the decision stating, among others, that petitioner’s PTB did not incapacitate her for work; that hypertension is not a disabling ailment and rheumatoid arthritis is not compensable as these ailments are the results of the aging process, and that since claimant had already received the benefits under the optional retirement law she is no longer entitled to the benefits under the Workmen’s Compensation Act.

The Supreme Court set aside the appealed decision and reinstated that of the Referee.


SYLLABUS


1. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION; SUPERVENING ILLNESS; REBUTTABLE PRESUMPTION OF COMPENSABILITY; SUPERVENING ILLNESS RAISES A REBUTTABLE PRESUMPTION OF COMPENSABILITY. — Once an illness, subject matter of a compensation claim is shown to have supervened in the course of employment, there arises in favor of the claimant the rebuttable presumption that the said illness either arose out of, or at least was aggravated by, the nature of claimant’s employment.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; EVIDENCE; BURDEN TO DESTROY PRESUMPTION OF COMPENSABILITY RESTS UPON EMPLOYER; EFFECT OF FAILURE TO OVERCOME PRESUMPTION OF COMPENSABILITY. — The burden to show by substantial evidence the contrary lies with the employer. And the ultimate result of that principle is that the presumption rebuttable in its decision becomes conclusive upon the failure of the respondent employer to destroy the same.

3. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; OPTIONAL RETIREMENT; EFFECT OF APPROVAL OF OPTIONAL RETIREMENT BY THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT. — Where the employee’s application for optional retirement under Commonwealth Act No. 186, as amended by Republic Acts Nos. 1616 and 4968 was duly approved by the Office of the President the question of petitioner’s disability resulting from his illness is placed beyond dispute. For under Memorandum Circular No. 133, such optional retirement can only be ultimately allowed if the employee-applicant is below 65 years of age and is physically incapacitated to render further efficient service. Rather than weakening or barring petitioner’s compensation claim that approval invigorates said claim and lays to rest any doubts on petitioner’s state of health at the time he stopped working.

4. ID.; CLAIM CONTROVERSION; EFFECT OF FAILURE TO CONTORVERT THE CLAIM. — An uncontroverted claim for compensation entitles the claimant an outright award because the employer is thereby deemed to have renounce all non-jurisdictional defense of non-compensability. The employer’s duty to controvert the claim is not excused by the fact that the claim for disability compensation was filed only after petitioner’s retirement when the employer-employee relationship between respondent employer and petitioner no longer obtained.

5. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; PERIOD TO CONTROVERT CLAIM FOR COMPENSATION; REQUISITES. — The Workmen’s Compensation Act, as amended, is precise that 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. The filing of the compensation claim only after petitioner’s retirement does not render unnecessary compliance by employer of its duty to controvert nor does it jurisprudence petitioner’s claim. What is fatal is the absence of employer-employee relationship at the time illness and/or disability was contracted; not absence thereof at the time of the filing of the claim.

6. ID.; NOTICE; EFFECT OF FAILURE TO SERVE NOTICE AND CLAIM TO THE SOLICITOR GENERAL. — The failure to furnish the office of the Solicitor General of a copy of the Notice and Claim for Compensation as required by General Circular No. 68 of CAO (CA) dated October 6, 1959 — providing that claims against the Republic of the Philippines should be transmitted to the Solicitor General in his capacity as counsel for the National Government — does not result in a failure of jurisdiction of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission over the Republic. Verily, the failure of the government agency concerned (Workmen’s Compensation Section or Unit) to comply with the strictures of the aforesaid circular cannot be taken against the claimant who has no control over said agency or its officials. That omission cannot be the instrument of injustice against the claimant-employee nor override the statutory sanction for non-controversion in accordance with enshrined doctrinal jurisprudence.


D E C I S I O N


MAKASIAR, J.:


Review of the January 30, 1976 decision of the respondent Commission reversing the October 29, 1975 award of the Acting Hearing Officer in WC Case No. 164244.

Petitioner rendered government service for a period of forty (40) years, more or less; the first twelve (12) of which was as a classroom teacher with the Bureau of Public Schools and the last twenty-eight (28) with the Department of Labor where she initially held the position of clerk. At the time of her retirement on July 1, 1974 at the age of 61, she was holding the position of Supervising Apprenticeship Officer (Chief of Division) with a salary of P11,900.00 per annum.

On March 13, 1975, Petitioner, because of her illnesses of PTB, essential hypertension, and rheumatoid arthritis, filed a claim for disability compensation benefits with the Workmen’s Compensation Section of the Department of Labor.

At the initial hearing on October 13, 1975 of the compensation claim, only petitioner appeared. Whereupon, she submitted to the Acting Hearing Officer her affidavit dated October 13, 1975, together with other supporting documents.

Thereafter, claimant was referred for "PE and/or evaluation" to the WC Medical Officer who duly recommended the approval of claimant’s compensation claim because her illness were the result of and were aggravated by the nature of her work (p. 29, WCC rec.).chanrobles law library : red

On October 29, 1975, the Acting Hearing Officer rendered a decision awarding compensation benefits to petitioner in the amount of six thousand (P6,000.00) pesos. Despite his express finding that the compensation claim was uncontroverted, he nevertheless endeavored to inquire into the factual circumstances of claimant’s ailments and its compensability, thus:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Claimant started in the service of respondent on April 1, 1946 as accounting clerk and held other positions until she became Chief of Division, Bureau of Apprenticeship whose last rate of salary was P11,904.00 per annum as evidenced by the service record. As such employee her duties consisted in the handling and processing of all applications for apprenticeship which included medical certificates from the Bureau of Health Services at the San Lazaro compound where applicants were medically examined and the maintenance and safe keeping of all other official communications and records of the Office of Apprenticeship. In 1961-1962 her job as Chief of the Registration and Certification Section exposed claimant to all kinds of people applying for apprenticeship, the final interview and counselling of whom were also her responsibilities before their acceptance and registration as apprentices.

"Sometime in 1962 claimant, having been promoted, also held several other positions of responsibility in concurrent capacity aside from her regular position, so much so that she began to suffer hypertension from severe to moderate, causing frequent dizzy spells, severe headaches and pains in almost all parts of her body.

"In 1962 claimant learned that she bad PTB when for reinsurance purpose she was medically examined by the GSIS, findings of which were confirmed later by Dr. Ananias Lacsamana on April 12, 1962, October 17, 1962, September 7, 1965 and June 9, 1972 as evidenced by X-ray findings. One of the claimant’s attending physician, Dr. Esteban Galang who accomplished the Physician’s Report and who diagnosed the ailment of the claimant as PTB Minimal-essential hypertension attested therein that said illness is the result of the nature of employment and/or aggravated by the employment. For the treatment of her illness she had already spent P1,452.00 as evidenced by receipt issued by Dr. Esteban Galang.

"Due to her aforesaid illness claimant was frequently on sick leave practically every month in 1972 and 1973 till she was forced to retire on July 1, 1974 at the age of 60 1/2. This is evidenced by her letter to the Secretary of Labor requesting that she be retired under Section 12(c) of C.A. 186 as amended by R.A. 1616 and further amended by R.A. 4968 to take effect at the close of Office hours on June 30, 1974. Said application for retirement was endorsed to the Office of the President, and the same was approved and given due course by the Office of the President.

"Viewed from the foregoing, notwithstanding the failure of respondent to controvert the claim, it is apparent that claimant’s illness of PTB-Minimal, essential hypertension and rheumatoid arthritis supervened and aggravated by the nature of employment. Moreover, the law on the matter recognized PTB as an occupational disease. We therefore rule that the instant claim is meritorious and, therefore, compensable buttressed as it is by documentary evidence. Per evaluation conducted by the Compensation Rating Medical Officer of this Office and as computed, under Section 14 of the Act claimant is entitled to P9,398.00 and under Section 18 claimant is entitled to P2,856.92. However, since the totality of these amounts exceeds the maximum provided by law, the same should be reduced to P6,000.00."cralaw virtua1aw library

Herein petitioner received a copy of the above decision on November 19, 1975; and thirty days thereafter, believing that the decision had become final and executory, commenced steps for its execution. It turned out, however, that although the respondent employer, through the Office of the Secretary of Labor, was duly furnished on November 19, 1975 a copy of the aforesaid decision, its counsel, the Solicitor General, was not; hence, petitioner took it upon herself to secure and deliver, upon authority of the office concerned, a copy thereof to the Solicitor General. That was January 9, 1976.chanrobles.com : virtual law library

On January 21, 1976, the Solicitor General filed a motion for reconsideration; but the same was denied on January 22, 1976 by the Acting Hearing Officer, who thereafter directed the elevation of the entire records of the case to the respondent Commission for review.

On January 30, 1976, the respondent Commission reversed the October 29, 1975 decision and dismissed the compensation claim of petitioner for lack of merit. Although the respondent Commission adhered to the basic factual findings of the Acting Hearing Officer, it however disagreed with the conclusion of the said officer and in justification stated that:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

". . . While claimant was found sick of PTB minimal for the first time on April 12, 1962, the records show that said ailment did not incapacitate her for work. As a matter of fact, she continued working until she applied for optional retirement upon reaching the age of 60 years. As for her hypertension, suffice it to say that this is not considered a disabling ailment .s this is only a symptom of an illness due to arteriosclerosis brought about by the ageing process. Rheumatoid arthritis is, likewise, not a compensable illness for this due to the degenerative changes in the joints, caused also by the ageing process, which is true in this particular case because claimant is already more than 60 years old. While claimant alleged to have been suffering from the ailments aforementioned, there is no showing that she was disabled for work by reason thereof. Moreover, having received the benefits under the optional retirement, claimant is no longer entitle to claim for the benefits under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, as amended, as there is no loss or impairment of her earning power. Hence, the Acting Hearing Officer committed a reversible error in declaring this case as falling within the compensatory coverage of the Act."cralaw virtua1aw library

Hence, this petition.

Respondent Commission’s peremptory dismissal of the compensation claim was clearly an error and must therefore be set aside and the award of the Acting Hearing Officer, being in accordance with OUR numerous pronouncements on the matter be reinstated.

I


The main conclusion of the respondent Commission, basis of its dismissal of the compensation claim, is totally unwarranted as it proceeds from the wrong premise that, under the obtaining facts, the petitioner has still the burden to show by substantial evidence that she was incapacitated from labor by reason of her illnesses. WE have ruled that is a patent distortion of the burden of proof applicable to cases where, as in this case, the presumption of compensability had already set in. Because once an illness, subject matter of a compensation claim, is shown to have supervened in the course of employment, as is the situation here, there arises in favor of the claimant the rebuttable presumption that the said illness either arose out of or at least was aggravated by, the nature of claimant’s employment; and that consequently, the burden to show by substantial evidence the contrary lies with the employer. And the ultimate result of that principle is that the presumption rebuttable in its inception becomes conclusive upon the failure of the respondent employer to destroy the same (Cañonero v. WCC, L-43880, February 28, 1978; Santos v. WCC, 75 SCRA 365, 370 [1977]). In the instant case, the presumption of compensability was not destroyed by the respondent employer which did not present any rebutting evidence as it failed to appear in any of the scheduled hearings of the compensation claim despite due notice (pp. 9-12, 43, WCC rec.). To the contrary, sufficient evidence were presented by the petitioner, so that her compensation claim, even in the absence of the aforestated beneficial presumption of compensability, would still stand erectly. As follows: (1) results of x-rays conducted on petitioner on April 12, 1962 [Exh. 1, id., at p. 18]; October 17, 1962 [Exh. J, id. at p. 20]; September 7, 1965 [Exh. K, id., at p. 19] and June 9, 1972 [Exh. L, id., at p. 2], all confirming petitioner’s illness of PTB; (2) certificate of Dr. Augusto P. Sarmiento [Exh. D, id. at p. 17], one of petitioner’s attending physicians, stating that petitioner "is at present suffering from moderate to severe hypertension which is very lebile . . ." and that her average blood pressure was." . . 240/120 . . ." and recommending that "it would serve her best interests if she retires from work . . .," certificate of Dr. Jesus G. Bustos [Exh. E, id. at p. 18], another attending physician of petitioner, substantially of the same contents as that of Dr. Sarmiento’s certificate; and (3) report of the Rating Medical Officer duly approved by the Chief of the Evaluating Division, WCC R04 [id. at p. 29] recommending approval of petitioner’s compensation claim on the ground that the illnesses of claimant were the results of her work.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

II


Respondent Commission likewise failed to consider and correctly appreciate the effects of the approval of petitioner’s retirement under C.A. 186, as amended by R.A. 1616 and R.A. 4968. By that approval, the question of petitioner’s disability resulting from her illnesses is placed beyond dispute. For under Memorandum Circular No. 133, such optional retirement can only be ultimately allowed if the employee applicant is below 65 years of age and is physically incapacitated to render further efficient service. Rather than weakening or barring petitioner’s compensation claim as the tenor of the questioned decision of respondent Commission would tend to suggest, that approval invigorates said claim and lays to rest any doubt on petitioner’s state of health at the time she stopped working (Cañonero v. WCC, supra; Romero v. WCC. 77 SCRA 490 [1977]; Despe v. WCC, 75 SCRA 350, 354 [1977]).

III


Furthermore, petitioner’s claim for compensation was not controverted. Hence, Petitioner, by reason thereof, is entitled to an outright award as respondent employer is thereby deemed to have renounced all nonjurisdictional defenses, including the defense of non-compensability. Respondent employer’s duty to controvert the claim is not excused by the fact, as it contends, that the claim for disability compensation was filed only after petitioner’s retirement; hence, at a time when employer employee relationship between respondent employer and petitioner no longer obtained. The Workmen’s Compensation Act, as amended, is precise that 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. The filing of the compensation claim only after petitioner’s retirement does not render unnecessary compliance by employer of its duty to controvert nor does it prejudice petitioner’s claim. What is fatal is the absence of employer employee relationship at the time illness and/or disability was contracted; not absence thereof at the time of the filing of the claim.

IV


Finally, WE find no merit in the Solicitor General’s contention that the failure to furnish his office of a copy of the Notice and Claim for Compensation as required by General Circular No. 68 of CAO (CA) dated October 6, 1959 — providing that claims against the Republic of the Philippines should be transmitted to the Solicitor General in his capacity as counsel for the National Government — resulted in a failure of jurisdiction of respondent Commission over respondent Republic. Verily, the failure of the government agency concerned (Workmen’s Compensation Section or Unit) to comply with the strictures of the aforesaid circular cannot be taken against the petitioner who has no control over said agency or its officials. Certainly, that omission by the said agency." . . cannot be the instrument of injustice against the claimant employee nor override the statutory sanction for non-controversion in accordance with enshrined doctrinal jurisprudence" (Dinaro v. WCC, 70 SCRA 292-293, 296-297 [1976]).chanrobles virtualawlibrary chanrobles.com:chanrobles.com.ph

WHEREFORE, THE DECISION OF THE WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION IS HEREBY REVERSED AND SET ASIDE AND RESPONDENT DEPARTMENT OF LABOR IS HEREBY ORDERED

A. TO PAY CLAIMANT

(1) THE AMOUNT OF SIX THOUSAND (P6,000.00) PESOS AS DISABILITY BENEFITS;

(2) THE SUM OF ONE THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED FIFTY-TWO (P1,452.00) PESOS AS REIMBURSEMENT FOR MEDICAL EXPENSES PROPERLY SUPPORTED BY RECEIPTS; AND

(3) ATTORNEY’S FEES EQUIVALENT TO 10% OF THE TOTAL AMOUNT AWARDED;

B. TO PROVIDE CLAIMANT WITH SUCH MEDICAL, SURGICAL AND HOSPITAL SERVICES, APPLIANCES AND SUPPLIES AS THE NATURE OF HER DISABILITY AND THE PROGRESS OF HER RECOVERY MAY REQUIRE AND THAT WHICH WILL PROMOTE HER EARLY RESTORATION TO THE MAXIMUM LEVEL OF HER PHYSICAL CAPACITY; AND

C. TO PAY THE SUM OF SIXTY-ONE (P61.00) PESOS AS ADMINISTRATIVE FEE:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

SO ORDERED.

Teehankee (Chairman), Muñoz Palma, Fernandez and Guerrero, 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






September-1978 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-30375 September 12, 1978 - JOSE ESCRIBANO v. DAVID P. AVILA

  • G.R. No. L-46027 September 15, 1968 JOSEFINO C. DRACULAN v. PROCORO J. DONATO

  • G.R. No. L-39344 September 18, 1978 - RICARDO JANDOG v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-45485 September 19, 1978 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RUFINO DE LA CRUZ

  • G.R. No. L-41187 September 29, 1978 - JUAN LAMBIQUIT v. GERONIMO MARAVE

  • G.R. No. 1170-CFI September 30, 1978 - NIEVES L. RITUAL v. ERNESTO P. VALENCIA

  • G.R. No. L-23128 September 30, 1978 - MALAYAN INSURANCE CO., INC. v. MANILA PORT SERVICE

  • G.R. No. L-24874 September 30, 1978 - CORNELIO MACANDILE v. ARTEMIO C. MACALINO

  • G.R. No. L-30924 September 30, 1978 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARNULFO BANGSAL

  • G.R. No. L-36603 September 30, 1978 - DOROTEO TOLEDO, JR. v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-38134 September 30, 1978 - JESUS R. AZNAR v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-39075 September 30, 1978 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REDENTOR TIBAYAN

  • G.R. No. L-41351 September 30, 1978 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. LUIS LARDIZABAL

  • G.R. No. L-42536 September 30, 1978 - FRANCISCO CARRERA v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. L-42648 September 30, 1978 - CARMELITA ACOSTA-OFALIA v. CARLOS L. SUNDIAM

  • G.R. No. L-42896 September 30, 1978 - CECILIA R. PARAISO v. HERMINIA CASTELO-SOTTO

  • G.R. No. L-43036 September 30, 1978 - DOMINGO LOPEZ v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. L-43083 September 30, 1978 - GREGORIO BALLESTAMON v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. L-43226 September 30, 1978 - GREGORIA MARQUEZ v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. L-43471 September 30, 1978 - JOSE TORALDE v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. L-43690 September 30, 1978 - SANCHO SEBASTIAN v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. L-43691 September 30, 1978 - FELICISIMO LIGASON v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. L-43942 September 30, 1978 - APRONIANO ALABAT v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. L-44077 September 30, 1978 - ELIODORA C. VDA. DE CORPUZ v. COMMANDING GENERAL, PHILIPPINE ARMY

  • G.R. No. L-48471 September 30, 1978 - BETTY A. DACUYAN v. FIDEL RAMOS