Tortal v. Workmen's Compensation Commission
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Norena Tortal filed a claim for death compensation following the demise of her son, Eduardo Tortal, a farm laborer earning P8.00 daily. The stated cause of death was 'hypertension cerebral.' The claim was filed under the former Workmen's Compensation Act, as the death occurred in 1973. Procedural History: The petitioner filed a notice and claim for death compensation with the Workmen's Compensation Commission. The employer was notified but failed to submit the required employer's report within the statutory period, returning the initial notice as unclaimed. Although the employer eventually submitted a report controverting the claim, it was filed significantly late. The labor referee dismissed the claim for lack of merit, a decision affirmed by the Workmen's Compensation Commission, prompting this petition for review. The Petition: This petition for review seeks to reverse the Workmen's Compensation Commission's decision affirming the dismissal of the death compensation claim. The petitioner argues that the claim is compensable due to the presumption of compensability for illnesses that supervene during employment and the employer's failure to timely controvert the claim. The Supreme Court is asked to apply established jurisprudence regarding the presumption of compensability and the consequences of an employer's failure to comply with the statutory period for controversion.
Issue(s)
Whether the claim for death compensation is compensable under the former Workmen's Compensation Act. Whether the employer timely controverted the claim for death compensation.
Ruling
The decision of the Workmen's Compensation Commission is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The private respondent is ordered to pay the petitioner death compensation, burial expenses, and attorney's fees, plus administrative fees to the successor of the defunct commission.
Ratio Decidendi
On the compensability of the claim: The Court reiterated the principle under the former Workmen's Compensation Act that when an employee's illness supervenes during employment, there is a disputable presumption that the claim is compensable. The claimant is relieved of the duty to prove causation, and the burden shifts to the employer to prove that the illness is non-compensable. The Court found that the employer failed to present substantial evidence to overcome this presumption. The allegation of a drinking spree the evening before death does not preclude the hypertension from being caused or aggravated by the nature of farm work. On the timely controversion of the claim: The Court emphasized that under the former Workmen's Compensation Act, failure of the employer to controvert the claim within fourteen (14) days from the death of the employee or ten (10) days from knowledge thereof results in the waiver of all defenses. The employer's report filed on March 8, 1974, for a death that occurred on August 2, 1973, was deemed a belated act. The Court found no proof of timely controversion, noting that the employer's allegation of learning of the death only when asked to accomplish a form was insufficient, especially considering the nature of farm work and the daily wage being struck from payroll. Consequently, the employer was barred from raising any defense to defeat the petitioner's claim.
Main Doctrine
Under the former Workmen's Compensation Act, the employer has the burden of proof to establish that an illness is non-compensable once it is presumed to have arisen out of employment. Failure to timely controvert the claim results in the waiver of all defenses.