Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-16490 June 29, 1963
PANGASINAN TRANSPORTATION CO., INC., petitioner,
vs.
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION COMMISSION and CECILIO GATDULA, respondents.
Chuidian Law Office for petitioner.
P. C. Villavieja and A. F. Martinez for respondent Workmen's Compensation Commission.
Gubatan and Cera for respondent Cecilio Gatdula.
REYES, J.B.L., J.:
The petitioner seeks the reversal of the decision and the resolution of the respondent Workmen's Compensation Commission, affirming with modification, the decision rendered by Hearing Officer Liberato C. Delizo of Regional Office No. 1, Dagupan City, in WCC Case No. 89-RO1. The modified decision, ordering the present petitioner —
1. To pay the claimant, thru this office, the amount of P4,000.00 as compensation;
2. To provide such medical, surgical and hospital services and supplies until claimant's pulmonary tuberculosis is cured or arrested; and
3. To pay to the Workmen's Compensation Fund the sum of P46.00 as costs.
was affirmed by resolution of the Commission en banc, denying the petitioner's motion for reconsideration.
The respondent-claimant Cecilia Gatdula, after he was found physically fit for work, was employed as a driver of the Pangasinan Transportation Company, Inc., from 4 January 1950. The routes assigned to him, Dagupan. Tayug via San Carlos, San Jose Dagupan via Villasis, and Dagupan-Mangatarem via San Carlos, all in the province of Pangasinan, were rough and dusty. He further helped his conductor to load and unload baggages, or, when his conductor was busy punching passengers' tickets, did the work by himself. His driving schedule started from six o'clock in the morning to six o'clock in the afternoon, and from the same time to eight o'clock in the evening every alternate day.
On 20 June 1953, while driving for the company Gatdula met an accident, suffered injuries, was hospitalized for a time, and discharged from the hospital on 22 August 1953. The company, fully compensated for his injuries, and he returned to work on 17 January 1954. Before the end of the year, he complained of breast and back pains and headaches. First aid treatment, in the form of Cortal tablets, gave him temporary relief from his headaches, but the chest and back pains persisted. On 23 January 1955, he was afflicted with bronchitis acute, and the company ordered him to stop working; a month thereafter, he was found suffering from pulmonary tuberculosis, moderate, right; on 12 April 1955, the disease became chronic, fibro-exudative, bilateral.
The wage-earner claimant filed his notice of sickness and claim for compensation on 2 September 1957, and a copy thereof was sent to the company on 14 October 1957.
The petitioner company insists that (1) the claim is barred for failure of the wage-earner to file his notice of sickness and claim for compensation within sixty (60) days from disability, as established in Section 24 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, as amended, (2) the hearing officer had no jurisdiction to hear the case; and (3) the claimant's illness was not caused by, or traceable to, and aggravated by, the nature of his employment.
We find none of these defenses to be meritorious.
While it is true that the claimant filed his notice of sickness and claim for compensation only on 2 September 1957, after more than two (2) years from the time the disease was discovered, such delay is excused because the employer had actual knowledge of the claimant's bronchitis, which, shortly thereafter, developed into pulmonary tuberculosis; and claimant was actually laid off due to his pulmonary affliction. Section 27 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, as amended, provides:
SEC. 27. Sufficient notice. — . . . . Failure to or delay in giving notice shall not be a bar to the proceedings herein provided for, if it is shown that the employer, his agent or representative had knowledge of the accident or that the employer did not suffer by such delay or failure.
On the question of jurisdiction, the doctrine is now settled that Reorganization Plan No. 20-A, insofar as it confers judicial power to the Regional Offices over cases other than those failing under the Workmen's Compensation Law, is invalid and of no effect (Miller vs. Mardo, L-15138, July 31, 1961). This Court, in the case of La Mallorca and Pampanga Bus Company vs. Ramos, et al., L-15476, 19 September 1961, precisely resolved the same issue on the jurisdiction of hearing officers now raised by the petitioner. It said —
. . . . The claim involved in this action is for compensation for disability due to tuberculosis, alleged to have been caused and aggravated by the nature of plaintiff's employment in the petitioners' service. It is then a claim which falls squarely under Section 2 of the Workmen's Compensation Law . . . . And, as the jurisdiction vested by Act No. 3428, as amended, on the Workmen's Compensation Commission to hear and decide claims for compensation coming under its provisions has not been revoked, either expressly or by necessary implication, by Republic Act No. 992, as amended, or by any other subsequent statute, and the regional offices created under Reorganization Plan No. 20-A in the Department of Labor partake of the nature of referees which the Workmen's Compensation Commission had the right to appoint and clothe with jurisdiction to hear and decide such claims (Sec. 48, Act No. 3428, as amended), the provisions of said reorganization plan, insofar as they confer on said regional offices jurisdiction over claims for compensation falling under the Workmen's Compensation Law, is perfectly legal, and their decisions on such claims are valid and binding.1äwphï1.ñët
The Commission found as a fact, and its finding cannot be disturbed on appeal, being supported by substantial evidence and experience, that —
The rough and dusty condition of the routes assigned to the herein claimant, his lifting of baggages and cargoes of passengers thereby using physical exertion, and the nature of his work as driver requiring him to remain in the bus from eight to twelve hours every day the whole week, are the precipitating factors and the producing cause of the aggravation of his already pre-existing pulmonary tuberculosis. It is not surprising, therefore, that on February 5, 1955, the claimant's illness of pulmonary tuberculosis was found to be in its moderate stage.
A stronger reason to sustain the compensability of the present claim is that the company failed to rebut the presumption in favor of the working man, as held in the case of Naira vs. Workmen's Compensation Commission, et al., L-18066, 30 October 1962, when this Court pronounced:
. . ., in the absence of proof that the injury or death supervening in the course of employment has arisen because of the nature of the same, the death or injury is, by law, compensable, unless the employer clearly establishes that it was not caused or aggravated by such employment or work. Mere absence of evidence that the mishap was traceable to the employment does not suffice to reject the claim; there must be credible showing that it was not so traceable . . . .
While the company, in the case at bar, theorizes that the claimant Gatdula was infected by his wife; who died of tuberculosis on 23 April 1956, the testimony of Dr. Jose Gaerlan indicated a strong probability that it was the claimant who infected his wife.
WHEREFORE, the decision under review is affirmed, with costs against the petitioner, Pangasinan Transportation Company, Inc.
Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Barrera, Paredes, Dizon and Regala, JJ. concur.
Bengzon, C.J., and Makalintal, J., took no part.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
