PEDRO LEONARDO, PETITIONER, VS. THE WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION AND LUZON BROKERAGE CORPORATION, RESPONDENTS.

Petition for review^[1]
of the decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission in R04-WC Case No.
153315 which reversed the award of P6,000.00 granted by Acting Referee Estratonico S. Añano of the
Workmen’s Compensation Section, Regional Office No. 4, Department of Labor,
Manila, in favor of petitioner, pursuant to Secs. 14 and 15 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, as amended.

On May 27, 1974, petitioner filed his Notice of Injury or
Sickness and Claim for Compensation^[2]
seeking to recover disability compensation benefits against his employer, the
Luzon Brokerage Corporation, for his sickness of pulmonary tuberculosis
allegedly contracted in the course of his employment caused by or aggravated by
the nature of his work as driver physically disabling him for further work.  To support his claim for compensation,
petitioner attached the Physician’s Report of Sickness or Accident^[3]
accomplished by Dr. Delfin Manuel of the Philippine
Tuberculosis Society at Tayuman, Manila, stating
therein that claimant Pedro Leonardo is definitely suffering from a moderately
advanced Pulmonary Tuberculosis.

On August 5,
1974, private
respondent Luzon Brokerage Corporation controverted
petitioner’s claim, contending that claimant’s illness is not compensable as it
did not arise out of the performance of his duties and not in the ordinary
course of his employment.

The issues having been joined, the case was set by the Acting
Referee for conference.  The claimant
submitted an affidavit to constitute as his evidence in chief while respondent
submitted its Motion to Dismiss, and thereupon, the Acting Referee rendered
decision on February 24, 1975 awarding the claimant the sum of P6,000.00 as
disability compensation benefits as well as attorney’s fees.

Against this adverse decision, private respondent Luzon Brokerage
Corporation on March 18, 1975
filed with the Workmen’s Compensation Commission a Petition for Review of the
aforesaid decision.  The Commission,
through Associate Commissioner Eugenio I. Sagmit, Jr., concurred in by Associate (Medical)
Commissioner Herminia Sotelo
Castelo on November
25, 1975 reversed the Acting Referee’s decision on the ground that
it found “practically nothing to satisfactorily show that he (Pedro
Leonardo) was suffering from pulmonary tuberculosis in 1964.”

Hence,
this Petition for Review on Certiorari.

Private respondent Luzon Brokerage Corporation in its memorandum
submitted to this Court, anchors its opposition to the grant of compensation
benefits on the following grounds:  (1)
petitioner’s claim has prescribed; (2) there is no conclusive evidence that
petitioner (claimant) was suffering from pulmonary tuberculosis in 1964 when he
ceased working, or that he contracted the said ailment in the course of his
employment with respondent; and (3) the law furnishes equal protection to both
petitioner and private respondent without distinction between the strong and
the weak.

Apropos the first contention, private respondent maintains that
Sec. 24 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, as amended, explicitly prescribes
that claims for compensation benefits should be filed within two months from
the date of injury.  The respondent says:

“In the case at bar, it appears from the affidavit of Celestina Leonardo, wife of the claimant Pedro Leonardo,
dated January 7, 1975, submitted in support of the instant claim, that Pedro
Leonardo was aware that he was suffering from tuberculosis when he had himself
examined sometime in 1958 (see par. 6 of the affidavit).  Petitioner herein filed his claim for
disability benefits for the said ailment which he discovered in 1958, only on May 27, 1974.  From 1958 to 1974 is a period of 16 long
years.  x x x (T)here is no question that
petitioner’s claim for disability compensation benefits had long
prescribed.  Certainly laches had set in controverting
petitioner’s cause into one of a stale demand.

Petitioner’s claim may be
viewed at another angle.  In a
letter to the Chief Referee and Chief of Section of Regional Office No. 4 of the Workmen’s Compensation
Section dated August 1, 1964, addressed to the respondent Luzon
Brokerage Corporation, it was reported by the said Chief Referee that the
claimant Pedro Leonardo (petitioner herein) contracted illness sometime in
June, 1964.  Again, from June, 1964, when claimant contracted
illness to May 27, 1974 when claimant filed his claim for disability
compensation benefits is roughly 10 years. 
The claim has, therefore, prescribed. 
(Memorandum for Respondent Luzon Brokerage
Corporation, pp. 79-80).

Private respondent’s
stance that petitioner’s claim has prescribed is without merit.  In Romero v. Workmen’s Compensation and
Republic of the Philippines (Bureau of Public Schools), No. L-42617, June 30, 1977, 77 SCRA 482, 487,
We ruled as without merit the Solicitor
General’s contention that the filing by claimant of notice for compensation
beyond the reglementary period of two months as
provided by Section 24 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, as amended, was fatal
to the success of the claim; that said defense is not jurisdictional; and that
the statutory right to compensation
prescribes in ten (10) years.  Citing the
Romero case, We reiterated in Cañonero v. Workmen’s Compensation Commission and
Republic of the Philippines
(Bureau of Public Schools), No. L-43880, February 28, 1978, 81 SCRA
713, 720, that the contention of respondent employer that the filing of the
claim for compensation only after the lapse of more than seven (7) years from
the time of disability or illness in violation of Section 24 of the Workmen’s
Compensation Act, as amended was fatal to its success is, likewise, without merit.  It must be underscored that pursuant to
Article 1144 (2) of the Civil Code, the compensation under the Workmen’s
Compensation Act is a liability vested by statute which prescribes in 10 years.

When does the 10-year statutory period to file a compensation claim under the Workmen’s
Compensation Act commence?  This question
was resolve in Superior Concrete Products, Inc. v. WCC and Carmelito Benoza, No.
L-42020, March 31, 1978, 82 SCRA 270, 278, wherein We ruled that the ten-year
prescriptive period for compensation cases commences from the time the employee
is disabled to pursue his occupation by reason of illness.  Thus, We enunciated:

“The claim for compensation benefits filed by private
respondent Benoza has not prescribed.  Petitioner asserts that inasmuch as the
claimant alleges that he became sick with pulmonary tuberculosis in February of
1963, the claim for compensation has long prescribed and the employee is guilty
of laches since the latter filed the claim for the
first time only in April of 1971.

“Although the herein claimant became ill in February of 1963,
however, it was only in March of 1967 when he became disabled from work, and
inasmuch as it is the employee’s disability to pursue his occupation by reason
of illness which entitles him to compensation, Benoza’s
cause of action accrued only in March of 1967, consequently, the filing of his
claim in April of 1971 was well within the ten-year prescriptive period for
compensation cases of this nature.”

In the case at bar, the Acting Referee correctly ruled in his
decision that Pedro Leonardo’s claim for compensation benefits has not yet
prescribed for “the records show that the claimant’s disability started on
July 15, 1964.  The filing of the claim on May 27, 1974 is still within the 10-year
prescriptive period.  Workmen’s
Compensation is a substantial right created by statute, hence, the period of
prescription shall be 10 years in accordance with the provisions of the New
Civil Code.  Further, the claimant’s
delay in the filing of the Notice and Claim is non-jurisdictional provided,
however, the respondent did not suffer by such delay or failure or when the
employer, his agent or representative had knowledge of the illness or
accident.  In the case at bar, the
respondent cannot deny knowledge of claimant’s disability.  As a matter of fact, the matter was allegedly
reported to the Luzon Brokerage Corporation especially when the claimant filed
an application for benefits with the SSS. 
x x x“

Private respondent’s second argument that there is no conclusive
evidence that petitioner (claimant) was suffering from pulmonary tuberculosis
in 1964 when he ceased working or that he contracted the said ailment in the
course of his employment with respondent is, likewise, unmeritorious.  The records of this case indubitably reveal
that petitioner Pedro Leonardo had been in the employ of the Luzon Brokerage
Corporation as driver for more than thirty (30) years from 1930 to 1964 before
the disease of pulmonary tuberculosis caught up with him and rendered him
incapacitated and disabled for further work. 
He was barely thirty years of age when he started working for respondent
Corporation, a well-established and successful brokerage firm under able
management, which had under its employ about 750 employees who must have
undergone medical and physical examination previous to their employment and an
annual check-up thereafter, including the petitioner.  There is no showing that the services of
petitioner had been interrupted during his employment with the respondent
Corporation for over three decades. 
There is evidence that as far back as 1958, when Leonardo was still
working as driver of respondent Corporation, he began complaining about his
condition of missing his regular meals on time, getting hungry because of it,
the dust he inhaled while driving which caused him to cough, the intense heat
of the sun at noontime and the cold biting wind during rainy season especially
when he got wet, and after having himself examined by a doctor, he was found to
be suffering from TB.  The medical
evidence given by Dr. Delfin B. Manuel of the
Philippine Tuberculosis Society in his Physician’s Report clearly and
positively stated that claimant Pedro Leonardo was definitely suffering from a
moderately advanced pulmonary tuberculosis and that his illness could be
aggravated by his employment.

Private respondent’s assertion that compensability does not lie
as there was no showing that claimant was suffering from pulmonary tuberculosis
when he was separated from the service is flimsy and weak when We consider that
tuberculosis is not an instantaneous disease. 
It is an imperceptible disease that is breathed in and feeds on the
lungs and taken with food; its presence in the body cannot easily be discerned;
its incipient stage may not be readily discovered.  It is medically accepted that exposure to
dust and dirt is a predisposing cause of tuberculosis and tends to produce
fibrosis of the lungs which weakens the resistance to any latent tuberculosis
infection and reactivates that infection. 
(See Batangas Transportation Company v. Perez
and WCC, L-19522, August 31, 1964, 11 SCRA 797 and Lorenzo v. WCC and
Philippine Glass Manufacturing Co., Inc., L-42631, January 31, 1978, 81 SCRA
430, 440).  The causal connection between
his ailment and the nature of his employment as driver is thus easily
discernible, from which can be concluded that his illness supervened in the
course of such employment and was directly caused or either aggravated by or
was the result of such employment.  We
find substantial evidence to this effect from the Physician’s Report signed by
Dr. Delfin Manuel and the Medical Report of the
Social Security System.

At any rate, where there
exists some doubt as to whether claimant’s illness, pulmonary tuberculosis,
arose out of or was aggravated by his employment, such doubt for the purpose of
carrying out the beneficient intentions of the
Workmen’s Compensation Act, should be resolved in
favor of the claimant.  We must once
again emphasize the principle that in testing the evidence on the relation
between the injury or disease and the employment, probability and not certainty
is the touchtone.  And well-established
is the rule articulated by this Court numerous Workmen’s Compensation cases
decided by Us that under the presumption of compensability established by the
Act, the burden of proving non-compensability of the employee’s illness rests
on the employer, which in the case
at bar, respondent Corporation has
utterly failed to do by substantial evidence.

We find the decision of
the respondent Workmen’s Compensation Commission contrary to the evidence and
to the law.

WHEREFORE, We set aside the
decision of the respondent Commission and affirm the Acting Referee’s Award
with modification.  The private
respondent Luzon Brokerage Corporation is hereby ordered to:

1.  Pay petitioner Pedro
Leonardo the maximum amount of SIX THOUSAND PESOS (P6,000.00)
as disability compensation benefits;

2.  Reimburse petitioner his
expenses for medical and hospital services, duly supported by proper receipts;

3.  Provide petitioner with
such services, appliances and supplies as the nature of his disability and the
process of his recovery may require and that which will promote his early
restoration to the maximum level of his physical capacity;

4.  Pay petitioner’s counsel
the amount of SIX HUNDRED PESOS (P600.00) as attorney’s fees; and

5.  Pay the sum of SIXTY-ONE
PESOS (P61.00) as administrative fee.

SO ORDERED.

Teehankee, (Chairman), Makasiar, Santos, and Fernandez, JJ., concur.

^[1]
Treated as special civil action per resolution of April 26, 1976.

^[2]
Records, p. 128.

^[3]
Records, p. 129.