Alejandro v. Workmen's Compensation Commission
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Eustaquio Alejandro filed a compensation claim on January 15, 1973, alleging that on September 16, 1969, while supervising road asphalting, droplets of hot asphalt hit his left eye, causing vitreous hemorrhage. He stopped working on September 19, 1969, and retired from government service on September 20, 1969, at age 65, after 28 years of service. The respondent employer, Bureau of Public Highways, received notice of the claim on January 15, 1973, and filed its Report of Accident or Sickness on January 23, 1973, controverting the claim on the ground that the injury did not arise out of and in the course of employment. The Solicitor General filed a Notice of Controversion on March 15, 1973, stating the sickness was not contracted in line of duty nor aggravated by employment. Procedural History: The claim was set for hearing, but the respondent employer made no appearance. Petitioner's evidence was received ex parte, and the Acting Referee declared the claim uncontroverted. On January 6, 1975, the Acting Referee awarded petitioner compensation for temporary total disability, permanent total disability of the left eye, and reimbursement of medical expenses, plus attorney's fees and administrative fees. The Solicitor General's motion for reconsideration was denied, and the records were elevated to the Workmen's Compensation Commission (WCC). The Petition: On December 18, 1975, the WCC reversed the award, finding no showing that petitioner was disabled by the injury and that he continued working until compulsory retirement due to age, not disability, thus suffering no diminution of earning capacity. Petitioner seeks review of this decision, arguing that the WCC's reversal constitutes grave abuse of discretion.
Issue(s)
Whether the Petitioner's right to compensation was effectively controverted by the respondent employer. Whether the Petitioner is entitled to disability benefits and medical reimbursement despite continuing to work until his compulsory retirement.
Ruling
The Supreme Court modified the decision of the respondent Commission. The respondent employer is ordered to pay petitioner P2,777.00 as disability benefit and P500.00 as reimbursement of medical expenses, plus attorney's fees of P138.85 and administrative fees of P61.00.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court ruled that the employer's right to controvert was lost because the Report of Accident and the Solicitor General's controversion were filed far beyond the periods required by Sections 37 and 45 of Act No. 3428. Under these provisions, the employer must file a notice of controversion within 14 days from the occurrence of the injury or 10 days from knowledge thereof. The Court noted that the Petitioner's injury was immediate and treated the same day, and his superiors were deemed to have knowledge of the injury as his eye was visibly affected and the District Engineer even advised him against filing a sick leave. Applying established jurisprudence, the failure to timely controvert results in the waiver of all non-jurisdictional defenses, rendering the claim compensable. On Issue 2: The Court distinguished between the different types of benefits under the Workmen's Compensation Act. Regarding Section 14 (Temporary Total Disability), the Court agreed with the WCC that the Petitioner was not entitled to the P396.00 award because he continued working until retirement, meaning there was no 'wage loss.' Applying Hernandez v. WCC, the Court reiterated that compensation payments under Section 14 cannot extend beyond the compulsory retirement date. However, the Court held that the WCC erred in denying benefits under Section 17 (Permanent Partial Disability for loss of use of a member) and Section 13 (Medical Reimbursement). Citing Corales v. ECC and Central Azucarera San Pedro v. De Leon, the Court emphasized that these specific benefits are not subject to the wage-loss requirement because they compensate for the physical loss of a body part and the necessity of medical care, which exist regardless of the Petitioner's work status immediately following the accident.
Main Doctrine
The reversal by the Workmen's Compensation Commission of the Acting Referee's award, based on the finding that the claimant continued working until compulsory retirement and thus suffered no wage loss, constitutes a grave abuse of discretion, as it disregards the established jurisprudence that compensation benefits for permanent loss of use of a body part and medical reimbursement do not require a showing of wage loss. Furthermore, the employer's failure to timely controvert the claim renders it compensable.