Laron v. Workmen's Compensation Commission
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Pascuala D. Vda. de Laron filed a claim for compensation for the illness of her husband, Marcelo Laron, who was employed as a laborer-cook at the Doña Gregoria Memorial Hospital, operated by the Department of Health. Marcelo Laron prepared meals, was exposed to firewood heat, and performed other manual tasks. While employed, he complained of loss of appetite and abdominal pains, leading to his confinement in the hospital where he worked, and later at the Baguio General Hospital. His ailment was diagnosed as cancer of the stomach, and he died on May 24, 1973, at the age of 63. Procedural History: The claim was dismissed by the Hearing Unit of Regional Office No. I for alleged lack of interest of the claimant to submit affidavits. The motion to set aside the dismissal was denied, and the Workmen's Compensation Commission affirmed the dismissal for lack of sufficient evidence. The Petition: The claimant is before the Supreme Court, invoking settled jurisprudence to reverse the decision of the respondent Commission.
Issue(s)
Whether the employer's failure to file a timely notice of controversion constitutes a waiver of non-jurisdictional defenses. Whether the legal presumption of compensability under Section 44(1) of Act No. 3428 applies to a case of stomach cancer supervening during employment.
Ruling
The Supreme Court set aside the decision of the respondent Commission and ordered the Department of Health to pay the petitioner death benefits, burial expenses, and attorney's fees.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: Applying Section 45 of Act No. 3428, the Court held that the failure of an employer to controvert the right to compensation after having notice of the illness constitutes a renunciation of all non-jurisdictional defenses and an admission of compensability. The DOH hospital where Laron worked had actual knowledge of his illness because he was confined there from November 1 to 3, 1972, and examined by its own physicians. Despite this knowledge, the DOH failed to file any notice of controversion within the period required by law (14 days from disability or 10 days from knowledge). Following the precedents in Manila Railroad Company v. WCC and Philippine Graphic Arts, Inc. v. Mariano, such failure is fatal to any defense the employer may interpose. Consequently, the reasonableness and validity of the claim were already beyond challenge by the time the WCC reviewed it. On Issue 2: Under the mandate of Section 44(1) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, there exists a legal presumption that an illness supervening during the course of employment arose out of or was at least aggravated by such employment. In this case, Laron's stomach cancer manifested while he was actively serving as a cook, a position that involved physical strain, exposure to heat, and marketing duties. It is not the burden of the petitioner-widow to prove with medical certainty the causal relation between the work and the cancer; the law shifts the burden to the employer to provide substantial evidence to the contrary. Citing Talip v. WCC, the Court emphasized that 'probability and not certainty' is the touchstone for testing the link between injury or disease and employment. Since the DOH failed to overcome this presumption, the claim must be sustained.
Main Doctrine
In the absence of timely controversion by the employer, an illness sustained by an employee during employment is presumed to be compensable. Furthermore, in the absence of substantial evidence to the contrary, it is presumed that an illness or injury sustained by an employee was caused by or aggravated in the course of employment.