Dulay v. Workmen's Compensation Commission
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Severina Dulay was allegedly a laborer for both the Island Redrying Plant and its contractor, Juanito Lapitan. On June 2, 1969, while performing her work in the chemical drying area of tobacco leaves, she vomited blood. She was hospitalized and diagnosed with calcified bronchus and hilar glands, tenting left diaphragm, leading to incapacitation from June 2, 1970, to July 26, 1970. The Island Redrying Plant was notified. On December 26, 1974, she was treated again for an aggravated condition of "minimal exudative bilateral with cavitation left." Procedural History: Petitioner filed a claim against the Island Redrying Plant (Case No. 3017), which resulted in an award of P2,430.00 on October 19, 1974. No appeal was filed, but no payment was made. Subsequently, she filed a claim against Juanito Lapitan (Case No. ROI-WCU No. 3195) for the same illness, which was aggravated during employment. Lapitan did not controvert the claim. The Chief of the Workmen's Compensation Section awarded medical expenses, temporary total disability compensation, and compensation for non-scheduled disability, totaling P5,933.00, plus administrative fees. Lapitan moved for reconsideration, arguing that petitioner had waived her right through an affidavit of desistance in a different case. The Regional Office denied reconsideration and elevated the case to the Workmen's Compensation Commission (WCC). The WCC dismissed the award in Case No. 3195 and also the award in the already final Case No. 3017. The Petition: Petitioner filed a petition for review, assailing the WCC's decision for disturbing the final award in Case No. 3017 and for reversing the award in Case No. 3195 on the ground of failure to establish a link between the illness and the work.
Issue(s)
Whether the Workmen's Compensation Commission gravely erred in disturbing the award in Case ROI-WCU No. 3017 which had long become final. Whether the Workmen's Compensation Commission gravely erred in reversing the Referee's award in Case No. ROI-WCU No. 3195 on the ground that the petitioner failed to establish a link between the illness she contracted and the nature of her work.
Ruling
The decision of the Workmen's Compensation Commission is set aside. Respondent Juanito Lapitan is ordered to pay petitioner the amounts for temporary total disability, non-scheduled disability, reimbursement of medical expenses, and attorney's fees, plus administrative fees to the successors of the Workmen's Compensation Commission.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of disturbing the final award in Case ROI-WCU No. 3017: The Court acknowledged that the award in Case No. 3017 had long become final and was not directly involved in the review of Case No. 3195. However, it clarified that the petitioner cannot recover twice for the same sickness, implying that the finality of one award does not preclude the Court from considering the overall compensation due, especially when the WCC's decision erroneously disturbed it. On the issue of failure to establish a link between the illness and the work: The Court found that the Workmen's Compensation Commission erred in ruling that the petitioner failed to lay the basis for her claim by means of convincing proof. It reiterated the established principle that when an illness supervenes during employment, there is a disputable presumption that the claim is compensable under Section 44 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, as amended. This presumption relieves the laborer from the burden of proving causation once the injury or illness is shown to have arisen in the course of employment. The Court cited Justiniano vs. Workmen's Compensation and Agustin vs. Workmen's Compensation Commission to support this doctrine. Furthermore, the petitioner presented evidence, including medical reports detailing her condition (vomiting blood, calcified bronchus, hilar glands, tenting left diaphragm, and later, minimal exudative bilateral with cavitation left) and proof of incurred medical expenses, which corroborated her claim. The fact that the respondent, Juanito Lapitan, did not controvert the claim was also noted as a significant factor, as this omission is deemed a renunciation of all non-jurisdictional defenses, as held in Lomonog Dinaro vs. Workmen's Compensation Commission, et al.
Main Doctrine
The presumption of compensability under Section 44 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, as amended, applies when an illness supervened during employment, relieving the laborer from the burden of proving causation. Failure to controvert the claim constitutes a renunciation of non-jurisdictional defenses.