G.R. No. L-28819. June 23, 1970
PIONEER CERAMICS, INC., PETITIONER, VS. ELISEO O. SAMIA, AND THE WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, RESPONDENTS.
MAKALINTAL, J.:
This is a review of the decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner
in R0-WC Case No. 97135 and of the resolution of the Workmen’s Compensation
Commission en banc denying the petitioner’s motion for
reconsideration.
The claimant below, now respondent, is Eliseo
O. Samia, who was employed as plant mechanic (foreman)
in the Pioneer Ceramics, Inc., in 1956.
He worked as such continuously until October 8, 1965, when he failed to report for work. On June
10, 1966, he filed with Regional Office No. 4 of the Department of
Labor a notice of injury or sickness and claim for compensation, stating that
by reason of the nature of his work he contracted pulmonary tuberculosis, and
that on October 8, 1965 he
gave notice thereof to Ramon Atienza, general manager
of the Pioneer Ceramics, Inc. By
registered mail dated June 30, 1966. Regional Office No. 4 transmitted the claim
to the employer, together with blank forms to be accomplished by it and
returned to said office, namely, WC Form No. 3,
Employee’s Report of Accident or Sickness; WC Form No. 4, Physician’s Report;
and WC Form No. 5, Employer’s Supplementary Report. Those forms were received by the addressee on
July 20, 1966, but were
neither accomplished nor returned.
However, on July 7, 1966 the company wrote a letter to Regional Office
No. 4, “registering our controversion of any
claim that may be filed or that may have been filed already by one of our
employees, named Eliseo Samia,
for compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Law as amended, on the ground
that his illness is not work-connected, or was directly caused by the nature of
his employment or aggravated by such employment.” The company alleges that the said letter was
sent because “of a rumor that the claimant was sick,” but that
actually it was only on July 27, 1966 when the latter came personally to the
office to claim compensation benefits, by reason of which it filed its
“Employer’s Report” two days later, or on July 29, 1966. The record, however, does not show that such
report was actually received.
On September 7, 1966 the acting Chief Referee of Regional Office
No. 4, considering the claim as uncontroverted on
the ground that, the letter of July 7, 1966 was out of time, issued a
compensation award without a formal hearing, and mainly on the basis of the
physician’s report that the illness was “directly caused by the nature of
(claimant’s) employment,” that is, by “probable exposure to dust in
the factory which he inhales while within the vicinity…(which dust) causes
irritation to the lung tissue.”
The company moved to reconsider and the claimant opposed. To enable himself to review the case
thoroughly, the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner set the hearing for July 25, 1967, at 9:00 in the morning, for the purpose of receiving
additional evidence concerning the work of the claimant. Counsel for the company received notice of
the hearing the day before, July 24, but failed to appear therein on time. The testimony of the claimant was taken,
wherein he described his work as a plant mechanic, as a kiln fireman, as
foreman in the “forming section” where clay was pulverized to be made
into plates, vases and other products, and as machine press operator – all of
which work involved physical effort and exposure to heat and dust. On the basis of the evidence the
Commissioner, on August 3, 1967,
affirmed the award by the Acting Chief Referee dated September 7, 1966.
The company filed a petition for review with the Commission en banc,
with a motion to reinstate the right of controversion,
but was turned down.
The first issue raised in the instant petition before us is
whether or not the petitioner filed a timely controversion
of the respondent’s claim for compensation, pursuant to the second paragraph of
Section 45 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, which provides:
“In case the employer decides to controvert the right to
compensation, he shall, either on or before the fourteenth day of disability
or within ten days after he has knowledge of the alleged accident, file a
notice with the Commissioner, on a form prescribed by him, that compensation is
not being paid, giving the name of the claimant, name of the employer, date of
the accident and the reason why compensation is not being paid. Failure on the part of the employer or the
insurance carrier to comply with this requirement shall constitute a renunciation
of his right to controvert the claim unless he submits reasonable grounds for
the failure to make the necessary reports, on the basis of which grounds the
Commissioner may reinstate his right to controvert.” (Underscoring
supplied)
The claimant, Eliseo Samia, failed to report for work on October 8, 1965.
His bare allegation that he reported his illness that very day to the
general manager of the company where he was working, unsupported as it is by
any written evidence and denied by the other party, really should not be taken
at face value, even to the extent of foreclosing the other party’s right to
present evidence to the contrary on the ground that said right had been lost by
its failure to make a timely controversion. However, there exists other convincing
evidence of such failure – evidence that the petitioner has not seen fit to
dispute. It appears that on December 3,
1965, the Social Security System sent a letter to the petitioner, informing the
latter that the claimant was applying for sickness allowances “for his
confinement from October 8, 1965 to November 27, 1965,” and asking that
said allowances “be advanced by the petitioner, to be reimbursed by the
System upon presentation of proof of its payment and its legality;” that
the petitioner did advance the sickness allowances to the claimant; and that it
was duly reimbursed thereafter, as shown by an SSS voucher dated June 3,
1966. A copy of the letter of December
3, 1965 is attached to the respondent’s answer to the petition; and the same,
as well as the fact of the petitioner’s having made the advances and its
subsequent reimbursement therefor, were set forth in
the claimant’s answer to the petition for reconsideration below. As of December
3, 1965, therefore, the petitioner had knowledge of the
respondent’s illness. Its letter of July 7, 1966 addressed to Regional
Office No. 4 was very much beyond the period fixed in Section 45 of the
Workmen’s Compensation Act. The
Commissioner’s finding that the claim is uncontroverted
is therefore correct.
The petitioner would interpret Section 45 as referring only to controversion in cases of accidents or personal injuries,
not sickness. This restrictive interpretation
is unjustified, for paragraph “c” of Section 39 of the same Act
states explicitly that “injury or personal injuries includes sickness;
injury or personal injuries or sickness includes death produced by the injury
or sickness.”
The petitioner next contends that the respondent’s notice of
injury or sickness, filed on June 10,
1966, was out of time, and that in any
case it was not a claim for compensation.
In the first place, the form used for the purpose (WC Form No. 1) is
entitled “Notice of Injury or Sickness and Claim for Compensation,”
and contains not only the initial date of the sickness but also the daily wage
of the claimant, the number of working days per week, and the amount of
overtime earned. In the second place, it
is already settled that the failure to file the notice and claim within the
time prescribed in Section 24 of the Act is non-jurisdictional and does not bar
the claim if there is a failure to controvert on the part of the employer, as
in this case.
The petitioner objects to the consideration of the physician’s
report as a basis for the award on the ground that it is hearsay evidence, the
physician himself not having been presented as witness. This Court has ruled, in the case of National
Development Co. vs. WCC, G. R. No. L-21724, April 27, 1967, that while such a report
may be hearsay under the common law rules of evidence, it is nevertheless
admissible under Section 49 of the Act, and may be considered in addition to
the sworn testimony at open hearing.
In the present case, aside from the physician’s report there is the
testimony of the claimant himself concerning the nature of his work, which
testimony constitutes substantial evidence to support the award. It can hardly
be doubted that the disease (pulmonary tuberculosis) which the claimant
contracted, if not directly caused by his employment was at least aggravated by
it.
The fact that the claimant was allowed by the Workmen’s
Compensation Commissioner to present additional evidence (at the hearing held
by virtue of the petitioner’s motion for reconsideration below) is now
challenged as erroneous and against the law.
Far from being either, the presentation of such evidence, in the form
of the claimant’s testimony, was entirely in accordance with the sixth
paragraph of Section 49, which provides:
“Any party in interest who is disatisfied
with the order entered by the referee may petition to review the same and the
referee may re-open said case, or may amend or modify said order, and such
amended or modified order shall be a final award unless objection be made thereto by petition for review. In case said referee does not amend or modify
said order, he shall refer the entire case to the Commissioner, who shall
thereupon review the entire record in said case, and,
in his discretion, may take or order the taking of additional testimony,
and shall make his findings of facts and enter his award thereon. x x
x.” (Underscoring supplied)
Wherefore,
the decision appealed from is affirmed, with costs against the petitioner.
Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Zaldivar, Castro,
Fernando, Teehankee, Barredo,
and Villamor, JJ., concur.