January 1981 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1981 > January 1981 Decisions >
G.R. No. L-43649 January 27, 1981 - BERNARDO CAYABA v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.:
FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. L-43649. January 27, 1981.]
BERNARDO CAYABA, Complainant, v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION and PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT OF ISABELA, Respondents.
Sofronio G. Gamaden for Petitioner.
Assistant Provincial Attorney Villamor dela Cruz for Respondent.
SYNOPSIS
Petitioner, employed as toll-clerk by respondent Provincial Government until he was optionally retired in 1972 due to rheumatoid arthritis and hypertension, filed a claim for disability compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. During the hearing, petitioner presented evidence to show that his illnesses were the result of, and were exaggerated by, the nature of his work with the Provincial Government. Respondent, aside from subjecting petitioner to rigid cross examination, did not present any evidence to controvert the claim. The labor Regional Office, subsequently sustained by respondent Commission, dismissed the claim for lack of merit.
The Supreme Court held, that claimant is entitled to compensation benefits since respondent employer failed to rebut the disputable presumption that illness supervening in the course of employment is presumed compensable and to controvert the evidence presented by petitioner showing that his illnesses were the result of, and were aggravated by, the nature of his work with respondent employer.
Decision set aside and respondent ordered to pay petitioner disability benefits and to reimburse him of medical expenses supported by proper receipts.
The Supreme Court held, that claimant is entitled to compensation benefits since respondent employer failed to rebut the disputable presumption that illness supervening in the course of employment is presumed compensable and to controvert the evidence presented by petitioner showing that his illnesses were the result of, and were aggravated by, the nature of his work with respondent employer.
Decision set aside and respondent ordered to pay petitioner disability benefits and to reimburse him of medical expenses supported by proper receipts.
SYLLABUS
1. REMEDIAL LAW; EVIDENCE; FAILURE OF RESPONDENT TO CONTROVERT PETITIONER’S EVIDENCE IN CASE AT BAR. — Where during the hearing petitioner testified and was subjected to "rigid and scrutinizing cross-examination . . ." by respondent, but respondent did not present any evidence, respondent cannot be said to have controverted petitioner’s evidence.
2. LABOR AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION; WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION ACT; PRESUMPTION OF COMPENSABILITY; BURDEN OF PROOF TO ESTABLISH NON-COMPENSABILITY SHIFTED TO EMPLOYER. — Under the Workmen’s Compensation Act there is a disputable presumption that a workmen’s compensation claim is compensable where the ailment of the claimant supervened during his employment. The claimant is relieved of his duty to prove causation as it is then legally presumed that the illness arose out of the employment. To the employer is shifted the burden of proof to establish that the illness is not compensable. In the case at bar, the claimant did not rely on the disputable presumption of compensability alone, but presented evidence that his illnesses, hypertension and rheumatoid arthritis, were the result of, and were aggravated by, the nature of work with the respondent employer. The respondent did not adduce evidence to rebut the disputable presumption and the evidence presented by petitioner.
3. ID.; ID.; EMPLOYEE RETIRED OPTIONALLY DUE TO ILLNESS ENTITLED TO COMPENSATION BENEFITS ASIDE FROM RETIREMENT BENEFITS. — An employee forced to ask for retirement ahead of schedule not because of old age but principally because of his weakened bodily condition due to illness contracted in the course of his employment should be given compensation for his inability to work during the remaining days before its scheduled compulsory retirement, aside from the retirement benefits received by him. In the case at bar, had the petitioner not been forced to retire because of his illnesses he could have continued to work for seven years more until he reached the age of 65 years. Under the circumstances, he is entitled to disability compensation in the amount of P6,000.00 and to be reimbursed of the medical expenses incurred by him upon presentation of supporting receipts.
2. LABOR AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION; WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION ACT; PRESUMPTION OF COMPENSABILITY; BURDEN OF PROOF TO ESTABLISH NON-COMPENSABILITY SHIFTED TO EMPLOYER. — Under the Workmen’s Compensation Act there is a disputable presumption that a workmen’s compensation claim is compensable where the ailment of the claimant supervened during his employment. The claimant is relieved of his duty to prove causation as it is then legally presumed that the illness arose out of the employment. To the employer is shifted the burden of proof to establish that the illness is not compensable. In the case at bar, the claimant did not rely on the disputable presumption of compensability alone, but presented evidence that his illnesses, hypertension and rheumatoid arthritis, were the result of, and were aggravated by, the nature of work with the respondent employer. The respondent did not adduce evidence to rebut the disputable presumption and the evidence presented by petitioner.
3. ID.; ID.; EMPLOYEE RETIRED OPTIONALLY DUE TO ILLNESS ENTITLED TO COMPENSATION BENEFITS ASIDE FROM RETIREMENT BENEFITS. — An employee forced to ask for retirement ahead of schedule not because of old age but principally because of his weakened bodily condition due to illness contracted in the course of his employment should be given compensation for his inability to work during the remaining days before its scheduled compulsory retirement, aside from the retirement benefits received by him. In the case at bar, had the petitioner not been forced to retire because of his illnesses he could have continued to work for seven years more until he reached the age of 65 years. Under the circumstances, he is entitled to disability compensation in the amount of P6,000.00 and to be reimbursed of the medical expenses incurred by him upon presentation of supporting receipts.
D E C I S I O N
FERNANDEZ, J.:
This is a petition to review the decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission in R02-WCU Case No. 6178 entitled "Bernardo Cayaba, Claimant versus Republic of the Philippines (Department of Public Highways and Provincial Government of Isabela), Respondent", affirming the decision of the Special Hearing Officer of Regional Office No. II, Department of Labor, dismissing the claim for disability compensation. 1
The claimant, Bernardo S. Cayaba, filed a notice of injury and claim for compensation dated March 12, 1975 with Regional Office No. II of the Department of Labor, Tuguegarao, Cagayan against the Provincial Government of Isabela. 2
The respondent filed its employer’s report which admitted the employee-employer relationship with the claimant and stated that the salary of said claimant immediately preceeding his last day of service was P3,000.00 annually. 3
The Special Hearing Office of Regional Office No. II dismissed the case for lack of merit on the ground that "the claimant failed to present any proof credible and substantial to support a favorable decision." 4
The record discloses that the claimant has adduced substantial evidence to show that his claim is compensable. The very decision of the Special Hearing Officer summarizes the evidence presented by the claimant thus:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"At the hearing, claimant assisted by counsel Atty. Sofronio Genaden, took the witness stand and testified that he had served in the government service in the municipal, provincial and national branch (Service records Exhibits "B" and "M"); that, particularly, when he was with the Northern Isabela Emergency Hospital, Cabagan, Isabela, as Clerk I, doing office work, typing reports and filing records, in 1962 up to 1968 because of his going to and coming from work had forced him to walk the distance from his home at Centro, Tumauini, Isabela to Cabagan, Isabela and had to wade in water most often, he contracted rheumatoid arthritis and hypertension, that when he transferred employment to the respondent office as toll clerk, whose duties were to issue toll tickets, collect the corresponding payments and then prepare the collection reports, of the Gamu Ferry, Gamu, Isabela, in 1968 because of his duties he was exposed to colds, sunshine and rain his ailment of rheumatoid arthritis and hypertension became aggravated, hence, he had to inform his superiors, in a letter-resignation dated May 31, 1972 (Exhibit "I") that he wanted to apply for optional retirement under R.A. 1616 which was approved effective June 1, 1972.
"On cross examination respondent’s counsel, Asst. Provincial Attorney Villamor dela Cruz elicited from the claimant that the latter during his employ with the respondent had not taken any sick leave of absence; that claimant prepared his claim (Exhibit "D") and placed the date of his illness as June 1, 1972-(Exhibit "A").
"Presented by claimant to testify in his behalf was Dr. Jose T. Cabrera who stated that he know the claimant being a friend of his and having been one of his clerks when he was a resident physician of the Northern Isabela Emergency Hospital, Cabagan, Isabela in 1962; that he issued the Physician’s Report of Sickness or Accident (Exhibit "E") wherein he stated and confirmed under oath that he first administered treatment to the claimant Bernardo Cayaba on February 15, 1972 as he had diagnosed him to be suffering from Essential hypertension and rheumatoid arthritis. That he had prescribed medicines to be taken by the claimant but that he has no definite knowledge if those he prescribed were bought and taken by the claimant as directed.
"During the proceeding claimant presented receipts to be marked as exhibits for the payment of medicines he bought but withdrew the same at the closing of his evidence.
"Respondent, through its counsel, did not offer any witness to support its controversion but subjected the claimant and his witness to rigid and searching cross examination and meticulously examined the documents offered and submitted as evidence." 5
The evidence presented by the claimant is not self-serving. He testified during the hearing and was subjected to "rigid and searching cross examination . . .." 6 The respondent did not present any evidence. Hence, the evidence of the claimant was not controverted.
It is a fact that the ailments of the claimant-petitioner supervened during his employment with the Provincial Government of Isabela. Hence there is a disputable presumption that the claim is compensable. 7 The claimant is relieved of his duty to prove causation as it is legally presumed that the illness arose out of employment. To the employer is shifted the burden of proof to establish that the illness is not compensable. 8
The claimant did not rely on the disputable presumption alone. He presented evidence that his illnesses, hypertension and rheumatoid arthritis, were the result of, and were aggravated by, the nature of his work with the Provincial Government of Isabela.
The respondent has not adduced evidence to rebut the disputable presumption and the evidence presented by the petitioner.
The record shows that the petitioner was forced to ask for retirement at the age of 58 years because of his illnesses of hypertension and rheumatoid arthritis which incapacitated him.
This Court had held that an employee forced to ask for retirement ahead of schedule not because of old age but principally because of his weakened bodily condition due to illness contracted in the course of his employment should be given compensation for his inability to work during the remaining days before his scheduled compulsory retirement, aside from the retirement benefits received by him. 9
Had the petitioner not been forced to retire because of his illnesses he could have continued to work for seven years more until he reached the age of 65 years. Under the circumstances he is entitled to disability compensation in the amount of P6,000.00 and to be reimbursed of the medical expenses incurred by him upon presentation of supporting receipts.chanrobles lawlibrary : rednad
WHEREFORE, the decision sought to be reviewed is hereby set aside and the respondent Provincial Government of Isabela is ordered to pay the petitioner the amount of SIX THOUSAND PESOS (P6,000.00) as disability benefits; the amount of SIX HUNDRED PESOS (P600.00) as attorney’s fees; and to reimburse said claimant of medical expenses supported by proper receipts; and to pay the successor of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission the amount of SIXTY-ONE PESOS (P61.00) as administrative fees.
SO ORDERED.
Teehankee, (Chairman), Makasiar, Guerrero and Melencio-Herrera.
The claimant, Bernardo S. Cayaba, filed a notice of injury and claim for compensation dated March 12, 1975 with Regional Office No. II of the Department of Labor, Tuguegarao, Cagayan against the Provincial Government of Isabela. 2
The respondent filed its employer’s report which admitted the employee-employer relationship with the claimant and stated that the salary of said claimant immediately preceeding his last day of service was P3,000.00 annually. 3
The Special Hearing Office of Regional Office No. II dismissed the case for lack of merit on the ground that "the claimant failed to present any proof credible and substantial to support a favorable decision." 4
The record discloses that the claimant has adduced substantial evidence to show that his claim is compensable. The very decision of the Special Hearing Officer summarizes the evidence presented by the claimant thus:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"At the hearing, claimant assisted by counsel Atty. Sofronio Genaden, took the witness stand and testified that he had served in the government service in the municipal, provincial and national branch (Service records Exhibits "B" and "M"); that, particularly, when he was with the Northern Isabela Emergency Hospital, Cabagan, Isabela, as Clerk I, doing office work, typing reports and filing records, in 1962 up to 1968 because of his going to and coming from work had forced him to walk the distance from his home at Centro, Tumauini, Isabela to Cabagan, Isabela and had to wade in water most often, he contracted rheumatoid arthritis and hypertension, that when he transferred employment to the respondent office as toll clerk, whose duties were to issue toll tickets, collect the corresponding payments and then prepare the collection reports, of the Gamu Ferry, Gamu, Isabela, in 1968 because of his duties he was exposed to colds, sunshine and rain his ailment of rheumatoid arthritis and hypertension became aggravated, hence, he had to inform his superiors, in a letter-resignation dated May 31, 1972 (Exhibit "I") that he wanted to apply for optional retirement under R.A. 1616 which was approved effective June 1, 1972.
"On cross examination respondent’s counsel, Asst. Provincial Attorney Villamor dela Cruz elicited from the claimant that the latter during his employ with the respondent had not taken any sick leave of absence; that claimant prepared his claim (Exhibit "D") and placed the date of his illness as June 1, 1972-(Exhibit "A").
"Presented by claimant to testify in his behalf was Dr. Jose T. Cabrera who stated that he know the claimant being a friend of his and having been one of his clerks when he was a resident physician of the Northern Isabela Emergency Hospital, Cabagan, Isabela in 1962; that he issued the Physician’s Report of Sickness or Accident (Exhibit "E") wherein he stated and confirmed under oath that he first administered treatment to the claimant Bernardo Cayaba on February 15, 1972 as he had diagnosed him to be suffering from Essential hypertension and rheumatoid arthritis. That he had prescribed medicines to be taken by the claimant but that he has no definite knowledge if those he prescribed were bought and taken by the claimant as directed.
"During the proceeding claimant presented receipts to be marked as exhibits for the payment of medicines he bought but withdrew the same at the closing of his evidence.
"Respondent, through its counsel, did not offer any witness to support its controversion but subjected the claimant and his witness to rigid and searching cross examination and meticulously examined the documents offered and submitted as evidence." 5
The evidence presented by the claimant is not self-serving. He testified during the hearing and was subjected to "rigid and searching cross examination . . .." 6 The respondent did not present any evidence. Hence, the evidence of the claimant was not controverted.
It is a fact that the ailments of the claimant-petitioner supervened during his employment with the Provincial Government of Isabela. Hence there is a disputable presumption that the claim is compensable. 7 The claimant is relieved of his duty to prove causation as it is legally presumed that the illness arose out of employment. To the employer is shifted the burden of proof to establish that the illness is not compensable. 8
The claimant did not rely on the disputable presumption alone. He presented evidence that his illnesses, hypertension and rheumatoid arthritis, were the result of, and were aggravated by, the nature of his work with the Provincial Government of Isabela.
The respondent has not adduced evidence to rebut the disputable presumption and the evidence presented by the petitioner.
The record shows that the petitioner was forced to ask for retirement at the age of 58 years because of his illnesses of hypertension and rheumatoid arthritis which incapacitated him.
This Court had held that an employee forced to ask for retirement ahead of schedule not because of old age but principally because of his weakened bodily condition due to illness contracted in the course of his employment should be given compensation for his inability to work during the remaining days before his scheduled compulsory retirement, aside from the retirement benefits received by him. 9
Had the petitioner not been forced to retire because of his illnesses he could have continued to work for seven years more until he reached the age of 65 years. Under the circumstances he is entitled to disability compensation in the amount of P6,000.00 and to be reimbursed of the medical expenses incurred by him upon presentation of supporting receipts.chanrobles lawlibrary : rednad
WHEREFORE, the decision sought to be reviewed is hereby set aside and the respondent Provincial Government of Isabela is ordered to pay the petitioner the amount of SIX THOUSAND PESOS (P6,000.00) as disability benefits; the amount of SIX HUNDRED PESOS (P600.00) as attorney’s fees; and to reimburse said claimant of medical expenses supported by proper receipts; and to pay the successor of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission the amount of SIXTY-ONE PESOS (P61.00) as administrative fees.
SO ORDERED.
Teehankee, (Chairman), Makasiar, Guerrero and Melencio-Herrera.
Endnotes:
1. Rollo, pp. 25-27.
2. Rollo, p. 7.
3. Rollo, p. 12.
4. Rollo, p. 5.
5. Rollo, pp. 12-14.
6. Rollo, p. 14.
7. Section 44, Workmen’s Compensation Commission, Action: Justiniano v. Workmen’s Compensation Commission, 18 SCRA 677.
8. Balanga v. Workmen’s Compensation Commission, Et Al., 83 SCRA 771.
9. Hernandez v. Workmen’s Compensation Commission, 14 SCRA 219.
