Bautista v. Workmen's Compensation Commission
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Andres Bautista, employed as a switchman by Philippine National Railways (PNR) since 1945, filed an application for retirement on August 16, 1973, due to disability. On August 12, 1974, he filed a notice of sickness and claim for compensation, alleging he was suffering from PTB and Rheumatism, with the date of sickness allegedly August 10, 1973. A physician's report dated July 28, 1974, diagnosed PTB, far advanced, with a poor prognosis requiring hospitalization. The employer, PNR, received a copy of the decision on August 26, 1974, and filed its Employer's Report on September 11, 1974. Procedural History: The hearing officer dismissed the compensation claim on September 29, 1975, citing the claimant's and counsel's repeated non-appearance despite due notice, and insufficient evidence. A motion for reconsideration was filed, explaining the non-appearances were excusable due to late receipt of notices and the respondent employer's own delays and postponements. The motion also informed the hearing officer of the claimant's death. The hearing officer denied the motion but elevated the records. The Workmens' Compensation Commission (WCC) affirmed the dismissal on December 31, 1975, holding that the PTB illness contracted after retirement could not be attributed to employment. The Petition: The surviving spouse, Consolacion Bautista, filed a petition for review on certiorari, arguing that her deceased husband was deprived of due process and that the evidence on record was sufficient to grant the claim.
Issue(s)
Whether the claimant was deprived of due process. Whether the claimant's illness of tuberculosis is compensable. Whether the employer effectively controverted the claim.
Ruling
The Supreme Court set aside the decision of the respondent Commission. The respondent employer was ordered to pay the petitioner P6,000.00 as disability benefits, reimburse medical and hospital expenses, pay attorney's fees, and pay administrative fees.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of deprivation of due process: The Court ruled that the claimant was indeed deprived of due process. The dismissal order was based on the claimant's and counsel's alleged repeated non-appearance. However, the records showed that the failure to appear on specific dates was excusable. Counsel for the claimant received the notice of hearing two days after the scheduled date for the September 9, 1975 hearing. For the August 6, 1975 hearing, the claim of non-notification was not disputed. For the August 20, 1975 hearing, the notice was received by the claimant's representative five days after the scheduled date, by which time the claimant had already died. The WCC gravely abused its discretion in ignoring the issue of denial of due process, which is a violation of the Commission's own rules requiring reasonable notice to ensure the observance of a party's right to a hearing. Consequently, the dismissal order premised on non-appearance could not stand. On the compensability of tuberculosis: The Court found the evidence on record sufficient to conclude that the claimant's illness of tuberculosis was a result of the nature of his employment. The claimant, employed as a switchman since 1945, was found ill of tuberculosis after 28 years of service. His attending physician diagnosed PTB, far advanced, and opined that the illness was a result of the nature of his employment, citing the rigorous, dusty, and exposed nature of his work. Furthermore, the well-recognized presumption of compensability applied, as the illness supervened in the course of employment. The employer failed to discharge the burden of proving the contrary by substantial evidence, making the prima facie presumption conclusive. The respondent Commission's conclusion that the illness contracted after retirement could not be attributable to employment was deemed erroneous and unrealistic, considering the chronic and imperceptible nature of tuberculosis and its incubation period. On the effective controversion of the claim: The Court held that the claim was uncontroverted. The employer had knowledge of the claimant's illness as early as August 10, 1973, or even earlier, but failed to comply with Section 37 of the Workmen's Compensation Act by submitting its report on September 11, 1974, which was too late. By failing to comply with the statutory requirement of timely submission of the report, the employer lost its right to controvert the claim, thereby barring all available defenses.
Main Doctrine
A claimant is deprived of due process when denied a hearing due to non-appearance that was excusable and not properly addressed by the hearing officer. Tuberculosis contracted during employment is presumed compensable, and the employer bears the burden of proving otherwise. Failure to timely controvert a claim bars all defenses.