Laude v. Cine Moderna
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Vicente S. Laude was employed as a janitor by respondent Cine Moderna with an average weekly wage of P60.00. In 1973, he was diagnosed with pulmonary tuberculosis (minimal) and peptic ulcer. He filed a claim for compensation benefits under the Workmen's Compensation Act. Procedural History: The petitioner filed a claim for compensation which was initially granted by the Acting Referee of the Workmen's Compensation Section, Regional Office No. 4, Department of Labor, Manila, who issued an award for partial and weekly compensation. A motion for reconsideration was denied. However, upon review, the Workmen's Compensation Commission reversed this award and dismissed the claim, finding the physician's report insufficient without an x-ray result. The Petition: This is a petition for review of the decision of the Workmen's Compensation Commission. The petitioner argues that his illness, pulmonary tuberculosis, was contracted during his employment, and the employer failed to controvert the claim within the reglementary period, thereby waiving all defenses. The petitioner also contends that the employer's failure to reinstate its right to controvert and the argument that the illness occurred outside of employment due to the theater being razed by fire are without merit.
Issue(s)
Whether the Physician's Report, without an accompanying x-ray result, is sufficient to prove the petitioner's illness. Whether the petitioner's illness is presumed to have arisen out of or was aggravated by his employment. Whether the employer's failure to controvert the claim within the reglementary period constitutes a waiver of defenses, including prescription. Whether the destruction of the employer's property by fire terminates the employer-employee relationship.
Ruling
The decision of the respondent Commission is reversed and set aside, and the award of the Acting Referee is revived and reinstated. The petitioner is entitled to compensation benefits.
Ratio Decidendi
On the sufficiency of the Physician's Report: The Court held that the Physician's Report, diagnosing pulmonary tuberculosis even in its minimal stage, when supported by subsequent x-ray findings confirming the illness, is sufficient to establish the claim. The Court cited jurisprudence that even if the illness is not easily perceptible in its early stages, other symptoms existing at the time of examination, coupled with later confirmation, are enough to establish the condition. The Court noted that the respondent Commission's reliance on the lack of an x-ray at the initial diagnosis was misplaced, especially when the illness was later confirmed. On the presumption of compensability: The Court reiterated the rebuttable presumption under Section 44 of Act 3428 that an illness supervening during employment arose out of, or was at least aggravated by, the nature of the employment. This presumption shifts the burden of proof to the employer to present substantial evidence to the contrary. In this case, the employer failed to present any such evidence. On the failure to controvert and prescription: The Court emphasized the well-established doctrine that an employer's failure to controvert a claim within the reglementary period amounts to a waiver of all defenses, including the defense of prescription. The employer cannot subsequently raise defenses such as the claim being barred by prescription when they failed to timely controvert the claim. The Court found no evidence that the employer's right to controvert was reinstated. On the termination of employment due to fire: The Court addressed the contention that the employer-employee relationship was terminated by the fire that razed the theater. The Court stated that the destruction of the employer's property does not ipso facto work to terminate the employer-employee relationship, even if the employer ceases to do business as a result. This implies that the employment relationship could subsist despite the destruction of the premises.
Main Doctrine
The failure of an employer to controvert a claim for compensation within the reglementary period constitutes a waiver of all defenses, including the defense of prescription, and shifts the burden of proof to the employer to show that the illness is not work-connected or work-aggravated.