MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY, PETITIONER, VS. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION AND CRISPIN PINEDA, RESPONDENTS.

PAREDES, J.:

On October 27, 1959, Crispin Pineda presented with the Department of Labor,
Regional Office No. 3, a complaint for disability compensation, under the
Workmen’s Compensation Act No. 3428. In his recitals in the complaint, it
appears that he was employed with the Manila Railroad Company (MRR for short)
since 1936, as a trackman, whose principal duties were changing rails, ties,
clips and alzada de via, fill tracks during washouts and other allied
work; that in the performance of these jobs, he was exposed to the sun, heat,
rain and stormy weather, night and day; that due to the nature of his work he
(Pineda), contracted pulmonary tuberculosis; that on November 17, 1958, the
Medical Department of the MRR found Pineda suffering from pulmonary tuberculosis
and on December16, 1958, he was retired from the service, due to physical
disability.

The MRR answering the complaint, after the usual admissions and denials,
interposed among others, Special and Affirmative Defenses, to wit –

“* * If ever the claimant contracted pulmonary tuberculosis, it was due to
his poor diet, sanitation, health, debility and lack of the due care in the
protection of his body against diseases like TB and not due to his employment in
the respondent company nor was the illness aggravated by the same;

Assuming arguendo that the claimant was found to be suffering from
TB sometime in November 8, 1958, same cannot be due to, nor aggravated by, the
nature of his work, for if it is so, claimant: should have contracted the
sickness very much earlier as he has been in the service of the respondent
company for more than 22 years; x x”

After due trial, the Hearing Officer dismissed the claim for lack of merits.
The above decision was elevated to the Commission, and on February 26, 1962, the
Chairman of the Commission affirmed the decree of dismissal stating that the
illness from which Crispin Pineda suffered was not compensable within the
meaning of the Workmen’s Compensation Law, as as ammended. Claimant moved for a
reconsideration of the affirming decision, contending, in the main, that the
same is contrary to law and that the illness was generated by the work. On April
12, 1962, the Commission en banc, reversed the decision or the Chairman and
ordered respondent MRR to:

“(1) Pay to the claimant, thru the Commission, the amount of THREE THOUSAND
THREE HUNDRED EIGHT &13/100 PESOS (P3,308.13), as compensation, computed as
follows; 60% of his average weekly wage of P31.15 (P135.00 per month times 12
months is P1,620.00 divided by 52 weeks) or P18.69 for 177 weeks (from November
17, 1958 to April 12, 1962 is 1242 days; 1242 days less the 3-day waiting period
equals 1239 or 177 weeks);

(2) pay further the claimant a weekly compensation of Pl8.69 from April 13,
1962 until his illness is cured or arrested but in no case shall the total amount
of compensation exceed P4,000.00;

(3) reimburse to the claimant the amount of P1,000.00 as medical expenses
which he actually incurred for the treatment of his illness;

(4) continue providing the claimant with such medical, surgical and hospital
expenses and supplies as the nature of his illness may require;

(5) pay to the Workmen’s Compensation Fund, the sum of P39.99 as
costs.”

In reversing the decision of the Chairman, the Commission. en banc except the
Chairman, considered the illness of claimant aggravated, if not the result of
the nature of his employment and the fact that the claim was not seasonably
controverted by respondent company. Expounding on these grounds, the Commission
said: –

“However, considering the nature of claimant’s work as a trackman, we are
constrained to hold the present claim compensable on the theory that his illness
was aggravated by, if not the result of the nature of his employment, x x x. The
nature of claimant’s work, which we find to be very strenuous and tiresome, and
his continuous exposure to various elements in the performance of his job, Sad
undoubtedly joined forces to affect a massive and violent attack upon his
health, thereby lowering his vitality and reducing its resistance against the
attack of TB germs, * * *.

As we have stated before on several occasions, while the claimant has the
burden of proof to establish his case, under the Workmen’s Compensation Law, it
is not necessary for him to carry that burden to the point of demonstration. It
is sufficient to show that the hypothesis on which he based his claim is
probable.’

On the theory that claimant’s illness was either aggravated by or the result
of the nature of his employment as a trackman, we hold the present claim
compensable. We cannot sustain the view that, simply because the claimant in
this case did not suffer any impairment of health from 1936 up to the time he
was found afflicted with moderately advanced pulmonary tuberculosis, there is no
casual relation between the employment and the disease, x x x. If the claimant
here did not suffer any health impairment during the early period of his
employment despite the strenuous work he performed, it must have been because he
was still in the peak of his health – being then young and full of vigor. It was
only, as we have stated earlier, after he was continuously exposed to the nature
and conditions of the employment that his health gave way to the attack of the
disease.

While we do not discount the possibility that factors other than the
employment of the claimant may also have contributed to the cause or
acceleration of claimant’s illness, this circumstance alone cannot affect the
compensability of this case. Under the law, it is not required that the
employment be the sole factor in the growth, development or acceleration of his
illness to entitle him to the benefits provided therein. It is enough if his
employment had contributed, even in as mall degree, to the development or
acceleration of the disease, x x.

Moreover, as correctly pointed out by the claimant x x, this claim appears
not to have been controverted seasonably by the respondent company, * * *.
Failure on its part to comply with this requirement constitutes a renunciation
of its right to controvert the claim unless it submits reasonable grounds for
such failure x x. Since claimant was disabled for work on November 17,1958, on
account of his moderately advanced bilateral pulmonary tuberculosis, the
respondent had up to December 1, 1958 (which is 14 days from date of knowledge)
within which to controvert the claim. Neither did it file a motion to reinstate
its right to controvert the claim, x x. Under this situation, the respondent is
considered to have renounced the right to controvert the present claim thereby
constructively admitting the same to be compensable. * * *.”

The above resolution is now before Us on a Petition for He-view, interposed
by the MRR. Petitioner raised three errors allegedly committed by the Commission
en banc, all of which center on the proposition of whether the illness of
respondent Pineda is compensable and whether, the MRR had controverted the claim
within the period allowed by law.

Anent the first issue, We find the conclusions reached by the Commission to
be in conformity with the facts, the law and jurisprudence on the matter. On an
identical case, this Court made the following observations –

“* * We agree with respondent Commission that the strenuous work performed by
the deceased worsened the condition of his disease. The fact that he was found
to be suffering from lack of nourishment, upon examination by petitioner’s
physician on June 5, 1954, and that he was living in a small and crowded room,
are not in themselves conclusive as causing the aggravation of his illness. If
at all, they are merely contributory (not primary) factors, and could not
counteract the established fact that the nature of his employment as
petitioner’s trackman, required him to perform strenuous work day and night, as
the exigencies of the services required the same, exposing himself to the
elements thereby aggravating hiss illness which he, undoubtedly, contracted in
the course of his employment by petitioner. Neither would the fact that when
examined by petitioner’s physician after 3 months of continuous work, the sick
condition of his left lung remained stationary while his right lung regressed to
minimal, apparently showing some slight improvement of his condition, defeat his
right to compensation. For the fact remains that when he was examined on March
27, 1957, his left lung was found to be far advanced in tuberculosis that he was
recommended for retirement on the following day (March 28) due to physical
disability and was actually separated on April 15, 1957, and died 9 months
thereafter, on January 27, 1958.” (Manila R.R. Co. vs. Ferrer &
WCC, 109 Phil., 716).

Furthermore, the finding of facts of the Commission is conclusive upon Us. No
showing has been made by petitioner that such finding is not supported by the
evidence on record.

Regarding the second issue, the record is clear that there was no timely
controversion. When Pineda’s flouroscopy examination was taken on November 17,
1958, petitioner came to know of respondent’s illness and had until December 1,
1958 to controvert the claim, in accordance with section 45 of Act No. 3238.
Having failed to do so on or before this date (December 1), petitioner had, by
operation of law, waived or renounced the right to dispute its liability for
said compensation. It follows, that claimant’s right to compensation cannot be
affected by the delay in filing the claim (Victorias Milling Co., Inc.
vs. WCC, et al., G.R. No. L-10553, May 13, 1957).

Conformably with the foregoing, the decision, subject of the instant petition
for review should be, as it is hereby affirmed, in all respects, with costs
against petitioner Manila Railroad Company.

Bengzon, C.J., Padilla,
Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Dizon,
Regala, and Makalintal, JJ., concur.