ATLAS CONSOLIDATED MINING & DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION AND ANTONIO RUBISO, RESPONDENTS.

Appeal from the decision of the Workmen’s Com­pensation Commission,
promulgated on November 19, 1963 and its resolution en banc of January 9, 1964
in W. C. Case No. R08-772, affirming that of the Hearing Officer, Department of
Labor, Regional Office No. 6 in Cebu City,
awarding to Antonio Rubiso compensation in the sum of P3,369.60 and other
benefits, on a finding that his ill­ness of pulmonary tuberculosis was either
contracted during his employment or aggravated, by the nature and conditions of
his employment.

It appears that on March
29, 1961 Rubiso filed with the Department of Labor, Regional Office No. 6 stationed
in Cebu
City a claim
for compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act claiming that he had
contracted tuberculosis during his employment. 
Petitioner’s answer, on the other hand, alleged firstly, that the
claimant did not contract and could not have contracted TB out of and in the
course of his employment with petitioner, and secondly, that the claim was
barred by laches and pres­cription, having been filed more than five years from
the date when the alleged ailment was contracted.  After a hearing on the merits, the Hearing
Officer rendered the decision mentioned above which was subsequently affirmed
first, by Commissioner Sanchez and subsequently by the Workmen’s Compensation
Commission.  The Commission en banc
having denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration, the latter took the
present appeal by certiorari.

The facts of the case as
found by Associate Com­missioner Jose Sanchez and later affirmed by the
Commission en banc, are as follows:

“The records of the case disclose that claimant began working
with the respondent company on December 19, 1953 as a laborer and cement mixer
operator-helper; that after a year, he was made an air compressor opera­tor in the Mines
Department of respondent in the mountains, the position he held up to December
7, 1956 when he was separated from the service because of his illness of pulmon­ary
tuberculosis.  Claimant’s illness of PTB,
when discovered upon x-ray examinations by the company physicians Dr. Antonio
Victoria on August 24, 1956 and Dr. Rafael Dira on September 3, 1956, was
diagnosed as far advanced, bilateral, because of the find­ings of ‘Fibrotic and
calcified rings of former cavity formations, and extensive in­filtration on
both lung fields.’ As a laborer during the first days of his employment, claimant’s
work was to lift cement and gravel and pour them on the box of the cement mixer
machine; and when he was made a cement mixer operator helper, he tended the
operation of the cement mixer machine which was electrical­ly run.  As air compressor operator, he operat­ed one
of the machines that supplied the air to
the men working inside the tunnel. 
Claimant’s salary at the time he left the service was P4.50 a day,
working six days a week.  During the entire period
of his
employment,
he was assigned to night work every 15 days.

“The records further show that as a result of the X-ray
examination performed on the claimant by Dr. Isidro Peña on February 7, 1961, and by Dr. Cecilio Dolorfino
of the Cebu Chest Center on January 28, and October 26, 1961, it was found that
his sickness of PTB had regressed to the minimal stage.”

In support of its appeal petitioner now contends that the
Commission erred in not holding that Rubiso’s claim was barred by laches and prescription
and in holding that claimants illnes was compensable, there being no
substantial evidence showing causal connection between the alleged contraction
or aggravation of Rubiso’s illness and the nature of his work as an employee
and laborer of petitioner.

The record discloses that the defenses of laches and prescription
are being raised for the first time in this appeal.  They were not invoked in the proceedings
before the Hearing Officer nor later on before Associate Commissioner Sanchez
and the Workmen’s Compensation Commission. 
As said defenses do not affect the jurisdiction of the latter,
they can not now be entertained and must be deemed to have been waived
(Regalado vs. Visayan Shipping Company Inc., G. R. No. L-42855, May 21, 1939;
Victorias Milling Company, Inc. vs. Compensation Commissioner et al. G. R. No.
L-10533, May 31, 1957; Manila Yacht Club Inc. vs. Workmen’s Compensation
Commission et al. G. R. No. L-19258, May 31, 1963).

Anent the alleged non-compensability of Rubiso’s illness, the record
likewise discloses that petitioner had knowledge of claimant’s illness but
failed to submit to the Commission the report required by Section 37 of the
Workmen’s Compensation Act, as amended. 
This failure amounts to a waiver of the defense that the laborer’s claim
is not compensable (Martha Lumber Mill Inc. vs. Romana V. Lagradante et al. G.
R. No. L-7599, June 27, 1956; Manila Railroad Company vs. Workmen’s
Compensation Commission et al., G. R. No. L-19377, January 30, 1964).  While under the law, the employer’s right to
controvert any claim for compensation arises immediately upon the occurrence of
the event upon which the claim is predicated, such employer, to be entitled to
controvert the claim, must submit a report of the accident or event upon which
the claim is based within
fourteen (14) days from the date of disability or within ten (10) days after he
has acquired knowledge thereof; otherwise he shall be deemed to have waived the
right to controvert the claim and, as stated in National Development Company vs. Workmen’s Compensation Commission
et al., G. R. No. L-19863, April 29, 1964, “the law bars all defenses
available to the employer, making no exception. 
Hence even the defense based on the employee’s failure to file the claim
in due time is now barred”.

The question of whether claimant’s illness (PTB) was compensable
or, in this case, was
contracted or aggravated during Rubisos employment, is a question of fact resolved in the affirmative by the
Commission when it hold that claimant’s illness must “have been contracted
during the period of his employment” although it remained undetected until
the last few months of his employment when he was twice X-rayed at his
instance.  The Commission likewise found
that, even accepting the employer’s con­tention that Rubiso must have had the
beginnings of the disease even before his
employment, still there was evi­dence “showing that he had the
symptoms of the disease during the first year of his employment” and that,
therefore, his case was one “of aggravation”, the latter being
clearly attributable to the nature of his work as petitioner’s laborer which required him “to lift cement
bags and gravel and pour them into the cement mixer; and even when he was
designated as helper operator of the cement mixer machine; he had been
constantly exposed to inhalation of cement dust, not to mention the elements as
his work was in the open; and as air compressor operator assigned in the
mountains he had been exposed to the cold winds especially when on night duty
as he had been assigned to night work every fifteen days during the entire
period of his
employment”.

The facts disclosed by the record, show, in our opinion, that the
present appeal is frivolous.

WHEREFORE, the appealed decision and resolution are
affirmed, with treble costs against petitioner.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Fernando,
Teehankee, Barredo, and Villamor, JJ., concur.

Castro, J., on leave.