REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES (BUREAU OF PUBLIC SCHOOLS), PETITIONER, VS. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION AND FERNANDO P. ALDABA, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.

Appeal taken by the Government from a decision
of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission.

It appears that Leonor M. Aldaba was a public schoolteacher of the Bureau of Public
Schools.  She rendered services, as such,
in San Teodoro, Oriental Mindoro,
for almost fifteen (15) years, up to her death on March 9, 1967. 
Aside from being a classroom teacher, she discharged duties as physical
education teacher, girl scouts leader, and music teacher.  While conducting her physical education classes,
in the morning of January 10, 1967,
she was overtaken by rain and got wet. 
Later that day, she returned home complaining of severe headache and
fever.  Her husband, Fernando P. Aldaba, sent for Dr. Sulit, the
municipal health physician, who examined and treated her.  Despite her condition, she continued working
up to January 25, 1967.  Her recurring head­aches, however,
constrained her to be on sick leave on January 26 and 27, 1967, after which she
resumed her work up to February 6, 1967,
when, due to her illness, she was brought to Calapan,
Orien­tal Mindoro, where she was examined and treated
by Dr. Cuizon. 
The latter diagnosed her illness as pneumonia.  When her condi­tion improved, she was
allowed, on February 21, 1967,
to return to her hometown, with the advice that she continue
taking her medicines.  Upon her return to
San Teodoro, she complained once again of severe
headaches.  This time, Mr. Aldaba brought her to the U.S.T.
Hospital, in Manila,
where she was confined and treated by Dr. Roger Baissas,
for two (2) days.  No sooner had Mrs. Aldaba left the hospital, than she had another attack, in
view of which she was confined at the Rizal Provincial
Hospital, where she died on March 9, 1967.  The cause of her demise was certified as
“pulmonary edema and cerebral edema.”

On June 7, 1967, Mr. Aldaba, acting on
his behalf and that of his minor children – Jenison, Joji
and Jeric Aldaba – filed
the corresponding claim for compensation, which was registered in the office of
the Division Superintendent of Public Schools, in Calapan,
Oriental Mindoro, on June 26, 1967.  On September 21 of the same year, the
“Employer’s Report of Accident or Illness,” signed by said Division
Superintendent, was filed with Regional Office No. 5, Department of Labor, with
a statement to the effect that her claim would not be controverted.  The report was coursed through the Bureau of
Public Schools and the Office of the Solicitor General, which expressed its
intention to controvert the claim.  After
appropriate proceedings, acting referee Amado A.
Enriquez, of said Regional Office No. 5, rendered a decision ordering the
Republic of the Philippines (Bureau of Public Schools) to pay to the claimants
the sums of P6,000.00, as death compensation benefits; P200.00, representing
burial expenses; P1,360.80, repre­senting medical expenses; and P61.00, as fee
of said Office.  This decision was
affirmed by Hon. Cesareo Perez, Chairman of the
Workmen’s Compensation Commission, in a decision dated July 25, 1968, the dispositive
part of which reads as follows:

“WHEREFORE, with the above modification, the decision appealed
from should be, as it is hereby, AFFIRMED and the respondent ordered:

“1. To pay to
claimants, thru this Commission, the sum of SIX THOUSAND PESOS (P6,000.00) as
death benefits, plus P200.00 as burial expenses, to be divided as follows:

“a.) To Fernando Aldaba as his share
. . . . . . . . . .      P2,000.00

Add burial expenses .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .            200.00

“b.) To the minor children,
namely:

JENISON
ALDABA . . . . . . . . . . . . P1,333.33

JOJI ALDABA . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .    1,333.33

JERIC ALDABA . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .     1,333.33       P4,000.00

“2. To reimburse the claimants of the sum of P1,360.80 for medical and hospital expenses incurred; and

“3. To pay into
the Workmen’s Compensation Fund, the total sum of SIXTY SIX PESOS (P66.00) as
administra­tion costs, including the costs of this review, pursuant to Sec. 55
of the Act, as amended.”

as well as,
later on, by the Workmen’s Compensation Commission – hereinafter referred to as
the Commission – sitting in banc.

Hence, this appeal by the Republic (Bureau of Public Schools)
upon the ground that the Commission erred: 
(1) “in not holding that the claim for reimbursement of medical
benefit, pursuant to Section 13 of Act 3428, as amended by Republic Act 4119
being purely a personal right, has been extinguished upon the death of the
deceased”; and (2) “in not holding that the claim for the reim­bursement
of medical benefit is invalid and unenforceable for fail­ure of the attending
physicians or the claimants to comply with the penultimate paragraph of Section
13 of Act 3428, as amended by Republic Act 4119.”

The first assignment of error is predicated upon the theory that
the right to indemnity for medical services is purely personal in nature and
that, as such, it is extinguished upon the death of an employee.  In support of this view, it is argued that
“nowhere in Act 3428, as amended by Republic Act 4119, can we find any provision
to the effect that legal dependents of the deceased mentioned in Sections 8 and
9 can validly receive the medical benefits which the deceased had incurred
during his lifetime.” Neither has appellant pointed out, however, any
legal provision declaring that the employee’s right of reimbursement for
medical expenses is extinguished upon his death.  Moreover, the rights of action of a deceased
person are, in general, transmitted to his legal heirs, unless they are
essentially personal in nature or the law declares them to be so.  Appellant has failed to show that said right
of reimbursement comes under any of these exceptions.

Then, again, the law^[1]
imposes upon the employer the duty to “provide the employee with such
services, appliances and sup­plies as the nature of his disability and the
process of his recovery may require.” It further provides that:

“The word ‘services’ used herein shall include medical,
surgical, dental, hospital and nursing attendance and treatment as well as the
proper fitting and training in the use of appliances and the necessary training
for purposes of rehabilitation; ‘appliances’ shall include crutches, artificial
members and other devices of the same kind, and the replacements or repairs of
such artificial members or such devices unless the replacement or repair is made
necessary by the lack of proper care by the employee; and ‘supplies’ shall include
medicines, as well as medical, surgical and dental supplies.

“In case the employer or insurance carrier cannot furnish the
aforementioned services, appliances and supplies promptly, the injured or sick
employee may acquire the same at the expense of the employer or insurance carrier.”

It should be noted that “the aforementioned services, appli­ances
and supplies” may be acquired – in the event of failure of the employer to
furnish the same “promptly” – “at the expense of the
employer.” The right of reimbursement for those services, appliances and
supplies is thus unqualified. 
Upon the other hand, they would not be “at the expense of
the employer” – under the appellant’s theory – if the employee dies.

In any event, the claim under consideration is uncontroverted. 
Indeed, the officers of the Bureau of Public Schools knew of the illness
of Mrs. Aldaba, she having applied for a sick leave
on January 26 and 27, 1967.  They, also,
knew that she died on March 9, 1967,
in consequence of said illness.  In fact,
her school principal and the Division Superintendent of Schools for Oriental Mindoro attended her funeral.  Yet, her employer did not file the requisite
report “on or before the fourteenth day of disability” – which was February 6, 1967, according to the
“Employer’s Report of Accident or Sickness” – “or within ten
days after he (the employer) has knowledge” thereof.1 Worse still, the “Employer’s
Report of Accident or Sickness,” filed on September 21, 1967, stated that the claim for compensation
would not be controverted.  As a consequence, the employer is deemed to
have renounced its right to controvert said claim.

For the same reason, the second assignment of error is, likewise,
untenable.  In this connection, the
Chairman of the Commission had the following to say:

“Lastly, it is argued that the claim for medical benefits
amounting to P1,360.80, although supported by
receipts, is not allegedly valid and enforceable because of lack of report to
the employer within twenty days from her treatment as embodied in Sec. 13 of
Act 3428, as amended.  We see no merit in
this contention for the employer, thru its authorized representatives like the
Superintendent of Schools, the District Supervisor and the Principal, knew all
along of decedent’s ailment and treatment, and her subsequent death, and were
even present at her burial.  To us, this
unquestionable knowledge of the late Aldaba’s
ailment, treatment and death can justifiably be considered substantial
compliance of the penultimate paragraph of Sec. 13 of the Act adverted to
above, and since proper medical receipts were presented to sup­port said claim,
and that the amount of such claim is reasonable, the same shall be reimbursable
to the claimants.”

WHEREFORE, the appealed decision of the Chairman of the
Commission is hereby affirmed, without costs.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Ruiz
Castro, Fernando, Teehankee, Barredo, and Villamor, JJ., concur.

Makasiar, J., did not take part.

^[1] Section 13, Act No. 3428, as amended.

1
Section 45, Act No. 3428.