Lizardo v. Workmen's Compensation Commission
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Victor N. Lizardo entered government service as a prison guard in 1948. His duties involved escorting inmates and apprehending escapees, often requiring him to omit meals or neglect personal needs due to the nature of his work. He was temporarily designated as "Sgt. of the Guards" during prison riots and later as "Post Tower Supervisor." On January 8, 1973, he experienced pain and irritation during urination, later noticing blood in his urine. He was diagnosed with acute prostate infection and underwent surgery on February 8, 1973. He filed a claim for compensation on March 7, 1973. He returned to work but experienced recurring symptoms, including blood in his urine and severe pains, leading to further medical consultations and hospitalizations, including two operations. He returned to work on February 2, 1975, after exhausting his leave credits, still suffering from minor pains. Procedural History: The Acting Referee dismissed petitioner's claim on September 29, 1975, holding that benign prostatic hypertrophy has no causal relationship with his employment and is a consequence of aging. The Workmen's Compensation Commission affirmed this decision on February 3, 1976. The Petition: Petitioner seeks review of the Commission's decision, raising issues of causal relation between his illness and employment, and the employer's failure to controvert the claim within the prescribed period.
Issue(s)
Whether the illness benign prostatic hypertrophy suffered by petitioner has any causal relation with his employment as prison guard, and, therefore, compensable. Whether the respondent Bureau failed to controvert the claim for compensation within the period prescribed by law and therefore, forfeited its non-jurisdictional defenses and ultimately admitted the compensability or work-connection of petitioner's ailment.
Ruling
The petition is GRANTED. The respondent Bureau is ORDERED to pay petitioner the sum of P6,000.00 as disability compensation, P600.00 as attorney's fees, and P61.00 as administrative fee to the Workmen's Compensation Fund.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of causal relation: The Court found that the petitioner entered government service in good health, and his illness supervened during his employment. This established a statutory presumption of compensability, shifting the burden of proof to the respondent employer. The employer failed to present substantial evidence to overcome this presumption, relying solely on a medical report stating the illness was a consequence of aging. The Court emphasized that evidence to destroy this presumption must be more than mere doubt and should be adequate to support a conclusion. Furthermore, the medical opinion of the operating physician, Dr. Nicanor Montoya, indicated that the enlargement of the prostate was hastened by urinary tract infection due to the nature of the petitioner's work. Given two conflicting medical opinions, the doubt should be resolved in favor of the petitioner, consistent with the intent of the Workmen's Compensation Act. The precise medical cause is not legally significant as long as the illness supervened during employment, relieving the employee of the burden to prove causation. On the issue of failure to controvert: The Court held that the respondent Bureau failed to controvert the petitioner's claim within the ten-day period prescribed by Section 45 of the Workmen's Compensation Act. The claim was filed on March 7, 1973, and controverted only on March 28, 1973, which was beyond the statutory period. This failure constitutes a forfeiture of the employer's right to non-jurisdictional defenses and amounts to a constructive admission of the claim's compensability. The Court rejected the Solicitor General's argument that the ten-day period should be reckoned from the date the Solicitor's Office received notice, stating that the duty to controvert devolves upon the employer, not their counsel. The Court reiterated that the Republic, as an employer, must set an example in strict observance of laws and cannot shield itself behind delays in official routine. Even the Solicitor General's Office admitted its controversion was belated.
Main Doctrine
Failure of an employer to timely controvert an employee's claim for compensation is fatal to any non-jurisdictional defense, constituting a constructive admission that the claim is compensable and barring the employer from proving that the illness is not work-connected or aggravated. The statutory presumption of compensability shifts the burden of proof to the employer to show by substantial evidence that the illness, though supervening in the course of employment, did not arise from it or was not aggravated by it.