Isberto v. Republic (Bureau of Public Highways)
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Juan Isberto was employed as a Building Foreman with permanent status. His duties involved supervision and completion of public works projects, requiring extensive travel via public conveyances, animal-drawn vehicles, and hiking, often missing meals. On December 23, 1957, he filed sick leave due to severe back pains, diagnosed as "Tuberculosis of the bones or Potts disease." He was confined from December 23, 1957, to April 30, 1958, and was pronounced completely recovered on June 15, 1961. During his confinement, his supervisor visited him, but no medical or hospital expenses were provided by the employer. Procedural History: On December 19, 1960, petitioner filed a Notice of Injury and Claim for compensation. The Hearing Officer awarded compensation, but the Workmen's Compensation Commission reversed this decision. A motion for reconsideration was denied by the Commission en banc. The Petition: Petitioner seeks review by certiorari of the Commission's decision, arguing that his illness, Tuberculosis of the bones, was directly caused by or aggravated by his employment, entitling him to compensation under Section 2 of Act 3428. He also contends that respondents failed to comply with Sections 37 and 45 of Act 3428 regarding reporting and controverting claims.
Issue(s)
Whether the petitioner's illness, Tuberculosis of the bones or Pott's disease, is compensable under Act 3428. Whether the respondents failed to comply with the reporting and controverting requirements of Act 3428.
Ruling
The Supreme Court set aside the decision of the Workmen's Compensation Commission and ordered the respondent to pay the petitioner the sum of P5,250.00.
Ratio Decidendi
On the compensability of the illness: The Court reiterated the established principle that once a disease is shown to have arisen in the course of employment, it is presumed by law to have arisen out of it, relieving the laborer from the burden of proving causation. The nature of the petitioner's work, which required continuous travel, exposure to dust and elements, and sometimes missing meals, could have contributed, even in a small degree, to the development or acceleration of his illness. The Court emphasized that it is not required that the employment be the sole factor; contribution, however small, is sufficient for compensation. The Court cited Justiniano vs. Workmen's Compensation Commission and Manila Railroad Co. vs. WCC, et al. to support this presumption and the principle that employment need not be the sole cause of illness. On the failure to controvert: The Court found the respondents' contention that the defense of failure to controvert was not raised in the lower tribunals to be without merit. The records showed that the issue of prescription (related to timely filing of claims) was raised in the motion for reconsideration before the Hearing Officer, and the petitioner's reply specifically addressed the non-compliance with Sections 37 and 45 of Act 3428. The denial of the respondent's motion for reconsideration, even if sub silencio, implied the denial of their contention. Therefore, for failure to controvert the claim within the prescribed period, compensation must be awarded.
Main Doctrine
The presumption that a disease arose out of employment, once it is shown to have arisen in the course of employment, shifts the burden of proof to the employer to show otherwise. Furthermore, failure to controvert a claim within the period prescribed by law results in the waiver of the right to do so, mandating the award of compensation.