Bihag v. Workmen's Compensation Commission
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Rizalina B. Bihag was employed as a classroom teacher by the Bureau of Public Schools from August 7, 1964, until her death on December 20, 1974. She died of cancer of the nasopharynx. Her son, Charlie Bihag, filed a claim for compensation. The Bureau of Public Schools, through a committee and the City Superintendent, initially recommended that the claim be given due course, stating the illness was contracted in the course of employment and was not controverted. Procedural History: The Office of the Solicitor General initially submitted a letter of controversion, asserting no causal relationship between the death and employment. Subsequently, the Acting Referee of Regional Office No. VII, Cebu City, granted the claim, finding that the illness supervened during service and was presumed to be caused or aggravated by employment, with no substantial evidence to the contrary. The employer filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied. The Workmen's Compensation Commission (WCC) reversed the Acting Referee's decision, denying the claim on the ground that cancer of the nasopharynx has no causal relationship with the nature of employment, citing a medical report stating cancer is not an occupational disease and teaching will not change its course. The Petition: The heirs of Rizalina Bihag filed a petition for review on certiorari of the WCC decision.
Issue(s)
Whether the illness of the deceased, cancer of the nasopharynx, is compensable under the Workmen's Compensation Act. Whether the failure of the respondent employer to timely controvert the claim constitutes a waiver of defenses. Whether the presumption of compensability applies in this case.
Ruling
The Supreme Court set aside the decision of the respondent Workmen's Compensation Commission and ordered the respondent Bureau of Public Schools to pay the heirs compensation benefits, reimbursement of burial expenses, and attorney's fees. The Court also ordered payment of administrative fees to the Workmen's Compensation Commission.
Ratio Decidendi
On the compensability of the illness and the presumption of compensability: The Court reiterated the well-settled rule that once it is established that an illness supervened during employment, there is a rebuttable presumption that such illness arose out of, or was aggravated by, the employment. The burden of proof shifts to the employer to prove the contrary by substantial evidence. In this case, the deceased's principal duties as a classroom teacher involved continuous talking, which could have contributed to or aggravated her ailment. The medical report stating cancer is not an occupational disease does not preclude compensability, as the illness manifested and progressed during her employment. The Court found that the nature and condition of her work contributed to and aggravated her ailment to a large extent, entitling her to compensation. On the failure to timely controvert the claim: The Court noted that the respondent employer failed to timely controvert the claim. Such failure constitutes a waiver of all defenses other than jurisdictional ones. This procedural lapse further strengthens the claim for compensation, as the employer lost the opportunity to present substantial evidence to rebut the presumption of compensability. On the causal relationship and occupational disease: While cancer is not an occupational disease and its etiology is unknown, the Court emphasized that this fact does not automatically bar compensation. The critical factor is whether the illness arose out of or was aggravated by the employment. The Court found that the deceased's work as a teacher, involving constant talking, likely aggravated her condition, establishing the necessary link for compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, even if the disease itself was not directly caused by her occupation.
Main Doctrine
The illness of an employee, which supervened during employment, is presumed to have arisen out of, or at least been aggravated by, said employment. The employer bears the burden of proving otherwise by substantial evidence. Failure to timely controvert the claim constitutes a waiver of all defenses other than jurisdictional.