Bayogbog v. Workmen's Compensation Commission
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Paciencio Bayogbog (claimant-petitioner) filed a Notice of Injury or Sickness and Claim for Compensation alleging he contracted "pulmonary tuberculosis, moderately advanced infection" during his employment with Marinduque Mining & Industrial Corporation (private respondent). The claimant was employed from September 13, 1968, until February 1, 1975, when his employment was terminated due to his illness, which was diagnosed on November 18, 1974. Procedural History: Regional Office No. 9, Department of Labor, Tacloban City, granted the claimant an award of P4,505.34 as disability compensation. The private respondent did not file a motion for reconsideration or petition for review. The claimant filed a motion for execution, and a writ of execution was issued. Subsequently, the private respondent filed a motion to set aside the award and writ of execution, arguing lack of jurisdiction. The Workmen's Compensation Commission reversed the award granted to the claimant. The Petition: The claimant filed a petition for review of the decision of the Workmen's Compensation Commission.
Issue(s)
Whether the Workmen's Compensation Commission erred in reversing the award granted to the claimant due to procedural issues. Whether the claimant's illness of pulmonary tuberculosis is compensable under the Workmen's Compensation Act.
Ruling
The decision of the Workmen's Compensation Commission is set aside. The Marinduque Mining & Industrial Corporation, SNP is ordered to pay the petitioner P4,505.34 as disability compensation, reimburse medical expenses supported by receipts, pay P450.00 as attorney's fees, and pay P61.00 as administrative fee to the successor of the Workmen's Compensation Commission.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of the Workmen's Compensation Commission's error: The Court implicitly found that the Workmen's Compensation Commission erred in reversing the award. The private respondent's motion to set aside the award on the ground of lack of jurisdiction was raised after the period for filing a petition for review had lapsed, and the award had become final and executory. On the issue of compensability of the illness: The Court held that the illness of pulmonary tuberculosis having supervened on November 18, 1974, the Workmen's Compensation Act applies. The undisputed fact is that the petitioner contracted the illness during his employment with the private respondent. Therefore, there is a disputable presumption that the claim is compensable under Section 44 of the Workmen's Compensation Act and jurisprudence established in Justiniano vs. Workmen's Compensation Commission. The claimant is relieved of the duty to prove causation, as it is legally presumed that the illness arose out of employment. The burden of proof shifts to the employer to establish that the illness is not compensable, as per Balanga vs. Workmen's Compensation Commission, et al.. The private respondent neither controverted the claim nor adduced evidence to rebut the presumption and the evidence presented by the petitioner. The Court found the award granted by the Acting Referee to be reasonable. The petitioner is also entitled to reimbursement of medical expenses.
Main Doctrine
The illness of pulmonary tuberculosis contracted by an employee during employment is presumed compensable under the Workmen's Compensation Act, and the employer bears the burden of proving it is not. The employer's failure to controvert the claim or adduce evidence to rebut the presumption shifts the burden of proof.