SEVERINA DULAY, PETITIONER, VS. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION AND JUANITO LAPITAN, RESPONDENTS.

This is a petition to review the decision of the Workmen’s
Compensation Commission in ROI-WCU Case No. 3195 entitled “Severina Dulay, Claimant, versus,Juanito Lapitan,
Respondent” dismissing the award granted by the Chief of the Workmen’s
Compensation Section in the Baguio City Sub-Regional
Office.^[1]

The petitioner was allegedly a laborer of both the Island Redrying Plant in San Fernando,
La Union and its contractor, Juanito Lapitan, and was assigned in the plant’s chemical drying
area of tobacco leaves.  On June 2, 1969, while in the performance
of her work, the petitioner vomitted blood.  She was brought to the La Union Provincial
Hospital for treatment and was found with “calcified bronchus and hilar glands, tenting left diaphragm”.  She was confined and was incapacitated for
work from June 2, 1970 to July 26, 1970.  The Island Redrying
Plant was immediately notified of the illness of the petitioner on the date
that she was confined.

On December 26, 1974,
petitioner was again treated at the Bethany
Hospital for the same illness and
was found to have an aggravated “minimal exudative,
bilateral with cavitation left”.

The petitioner filed a claim for disability compensation with the
Baguio City Sub-Regional of the Department of Labor
against the Island Redrying Plant.  The case was docketed as Case No. 3017.  On October
19, 1974, the Chief of the Sub-Regional Office awarded to
petitioner the amount of P2,430.00 as total compensation for the disability and
illness incurred.  No appeal was taken by
the Island Redrying Plant in said Case No. 3017.  However, no payment was made to the
petitioner by the Island Redrying Plant.

On January 19, 1975,
the petitioner again filed a Notice of Injury or Sickness and Claim for
Compensation, this time against.  Juanito Lapitan, based on the
initial injuries sustained which in the course of petitioner’s employment was
allegedly aggravated into pulmonary tuberculosis.  The Workmen’s Compensation Unit in Baguio City
sent on January 19, 1975 to
Juanito Lapitan copies of
the Notice of Injury or Sickness and Claim for Compensation.  Said Juanito Lapitan did not controvert the claim and right of
petitioner to compensation.^[2]

The Chief of the Workmen’s Compensation Section of Baguio City rendered an award
granting to the claimant the following benefits:

“Under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, as amended, the
following benefits should be extended to the claimant:

1.    Medical, surgical and hospital services and
supplies as the nature of the injury may require, pursuant to Section 13 of the
Act and to the reimbursement of the amount of ONE HUNDRED TEN PESOS (P110.00)
which she incurred for her medical treatment;

2.    Compensation for temporary total disability
for labor equivalent to 60% of her average weekly wages for the period she was
incapacitated for labor, pursuant to Section 14 of the Act.  In this case, she was disabled for work from June 2, 1969 to February 28, 1975, or 850 days or 121 3/7
weeks.  Sixty per centum of her average
weekly wage which was P35.00 equals P21.00 and for 121 3/7 weeks, she is
entitled to TWO THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED FORTY SEVEN (P2,547.00) PESOS;

3.    Compensation for the 90% N.S.D.
(Non-Scheduled Disability)-157.2 weeks (actual findings of Dr. Santiago P.
Estrada) to 50% of her average weekly wage for 187.2 weeks pursuant to Section
17 of the Act.  Fifty per centum of
his average weekly wage which was P35.00 equals P17.50 and for 187.2 weeks, she
is entitled to THREE THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED SEVENTY SIX PESOS (P3,276.00).

Under Sections 13, 14 and 17 of the Act, the claimant of the aforementioned
compensation benefits, and the respondent is directed to pay the following:

1.    To the claimant, thru this Office, the sum
of FIVE THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED THIRTY THREE PESOS (P5,933.00).

2.    To this Office, the amount of FIFTY NINE
PESOS (P59.00), as fee pursuant to Section 55 of the Act.

SO ORDERED.”^[3]

The respondent, Juanito Lapitan, filed on April
23, 1975 a motion for the reconsideration of the award in Case No.
ROI-WCU No. 3195 on the ground that the petitioner had already waived her right
to said award when she executed an affidavit of desistance before Atty. Pedro
L. Fernandez, then Hearing Officer and Chief of the Workmen’s Compensation Unit in Dagupan City on August 17, 1970 in ROI-WCC Case No. 5277 which is different
from the instant case.

On June 30, 1975, the Regional Office at Baguio
City denied the motion for reconsideration of Juanito
Lapitan and elevated the case for review to the
Workmen’s Compensation Commission, which rendered on October 29, 1975 a
decision dismissing the award not only in Case No. 3195 but the award issued in
Case No. 3017 which had long become final.

The petitioner assigns the following errors:

“I

RESPONDENT COMMISSION COMMITTED A GRAVE ERROR IN DISTURBING AWARD
IN CASE ROI-WCC NO. 3017 RENDERED ON JUNE
6, 1969.

II

RESPONDENT COMMISSION COMMITTED A GRAVE ERROR IN REVERSING
REFEREE’S AWARD IN CASE NO. ROI-WCC NO. 3195 ON THE GROUND THAT PETITIONER
FAILED TO ESTABLISH A LINK BETWEEN THE ILLNESS SHE CONTRACTED AND THE NATURE OF THE WORK.”^[4]

The award in ROI-WCC No. 3017 rendered on October 19, 1974 has long become final and is
not involved in ROI-WCU No. 3195.  However,
the petitioner cannot recover twice for the same sickness.

The Workmen’s Compensation Commission erred in finding that the
petitioner has failed to lay the basis of her claim by means of convincing proof.^[5]

It is a fact that the illness of the petitioner supervened during
her employment with Juanito Lapitan
and the Island Redrying Plant.  Hence, there is disputable presumption that
the claim is compensable.^[6]

In Agustin vs. Workmen’s Compensation Commission,^[7]
this Court held that “the laborer is relieved from the burden of proving
causation once the injury is shown to have arisen in the course of the
employment x x x.  The disease
having arisen in the course of the employment, it is presumed by law that it
arose out of it.”

Moreover, petitioner did not rely on the presumption alone.  She presented evidence to show that on June 2, 1969, while in the performance
of her work, she vomitted blood; and that she was
brought to the La Union Provincial Hospital where she was treated and was found
“with calcified bronchus and hilar glands,
tenting left diaphragm”.  The
petitioner presented a radiological report issued by Dr. Santiago P. Estrada,
Jr. of the La Union Provincial Hospital on June 6, 1969.  On
December 26, 1974, the petitioner was again treated at the Bethany Hospital for
the same illness and X-ray findings show “minimal exudative,
bilateral with cavitation left” as shown by the
radiological report dated December 26, 1974 issued by Dr. Faustino A. Nufable of the Bethany Hospital.  The petitioner also adduced evidence that she
incurred medical expenses.

The respondent, Juanito Lapitan, did not controvert the claim.  In view thereof, said respondent is deemed to
have renounced all non-jurisdictional defenses.^[8]

In addition to the benefits awarded by the Chief of the Workmen’s
Compensation Section, the petitioner should be reimbursed all medical expenses
which she can prove by proper receipts. 
She is also entitled to attorney’s fees equivalent to 10% of the
benefits awarded to her.

WHEREFORE, the decision of the Workmen’s Compensation
Commission sought to be reviewed is hereby set aside, and the respondent, Juanito Lapitan, is ordered:

1)   To pay the petitioner the amount of Two
Thousand Five Hundred Forty Seven Pesos (P2,547.00) as compensation for
temporary total disability for the period from June 2, 1969 to February
28, 1975;

2)   To pay the petitioner the amount of Three
Thousand Two Hundred Seventy Six Pesos (P3,276.00) as benefit for non-scheduled
disability;

3)   To reimburse the petitioner of medical
expenses supported by proper receipts;

4)   To pay the petitioner the sum of Five Hundred
Ninety Three Pesos and Thirty Centavos (P593.30) as attorney’s fees; and

5)   To pay the successor of the Workmen’s Compensation
Commission the amount of Sixty-One Pesos (P61.00) as administrative fee.

SO ORDERED.

Teehankee, (Chairman), Makasiar, Guerrero, De Castro, and Melencio-Herrera, JJ., concur.

^[1]
Decision, Rollo, pp. 22-25.

^[2]
Memorandum for Petitioner, Rollo, pp. 66-67.

^[3]
Rollo, pp. 26-27.

^[4]
Rollo, p. 14.

^[5]
Rollo, p. 24.

^[6]
Section 44, Workmen’s Compensation Act, as amended; Justiniano
vs. Workmen’s Compensation Commission,
18 SCRA 677.

^[7]
12 SCRA 55, 58.

^[8]
Lominog Dinaro vs.
Workmen’s Compensation Commission, et
al., 70 SCRA 292.