SULPICIA BATERNA, PETITIONER, VS. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION (OR ITS SUCCESSOR EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION COMMISSION) AND BOGO-MEDELLIN MILLING CO., INC., RESPONDENTS.

Petition for review of the decision dated December 31, 1975 of the Workmen’s Compensation
Commission in RO7-18373, reversing the decision dated July 17, 1975 of the hearing
officer and acting referee, Workmen’s Compensation Unit, Regional Office No.
VII, Cebu City.

Deceased Magno Baterna
was employed by private respondent as oliver
filter tender in 1933 until he became ill on January 6, 1964. 
Due to said illness and upon recommendation of respondent company’s
physician, Baterna was separated from the service on March 15, 1964.  On October
25, 1964, he died of Hodgkins
disease.

On October
22, 1974, Sulpicia Baterna, surviving
spouse of Magno Baterna,
filed a claim for death benefits with Regional Office No. VII, Department of
Labor, Cebu City, docketed as RO7-18373.

On July 17, 1975, Regional Office No. VII rendered a decision awarding death
compensation to herein petitioner (Annex B, pp. 11-12, rec.).  Private respondent sought a reconsideration
of this award, which was denied by Regional Office No. VII,
and the case was elevated to the Commission for review.

On December
31, 1975, the
Commission ordered the dismissal of the case in a decision (Annex A, pp. 8-9,
rec.), the dispositive portion of which reads:

“After duly considering the facts of the case, this Commission
finds that this claim for death compensation benefit has prescribed already in
view of the fact that ten years had elapsed before the same was filed and,
therefore, the same may not anymore prosper as claims under the provisions of
the Workmen’s Compensation Act prescribes after 10 years.  In view thereof, the petition for review of
respondent is hereby granted and this case is ordered dismissed.”

On February 2, 1976,
petitioner through counsel received her copy of the Commission’s decision dated
December 31, 1975, and on the same date filed a motion for reconsideration
(Annex D, pp. 15-16, rec.) of the decision.

Petitioner instituted
present petition dated May 5, 1976 pending resolution by the Commission of her
motion for reconsideration dated February 2, 1975.

On August
11, 1976, this COURT
resolved to treat the petition as a special civil action and to require both
parties to submit simultaneous memoranda.

Respondent employer had
renounced its right to controvert this claim. 
The records show that after respondent company’s physician recommended Baterna’s separation from the service due to his illness,
which eventually resulted in his death, it did not file the prescribed notice
of controversion as required by Section 45 of the
Workmen’s Compensation Act.  On the
contrary, as a result thereof, respondent paid him gratuity benefits on April
21, 1964 (p. 51,
rec. of WCC, RO7-18373).  Incidentally,
though, this payment may not validly be pleaded as a defense due to
non-compliance with certain requisites established by law.  Thus, the company’s notice of controversion of this claim (p. 52, rec. of WCC, RO7-18373)
filed on November 7, 1974 on the ground that the
illness did not arise out of or in the course of employment was deemed to have
been filed out of time and the defense invoked therein deemed waived.

Be that as it may, even
on the merits, the disputable presumption that the illness of deceased employee
arose out of his employment or at least was aggravated by such employment
because it supervened at the time of his employment, has not been sufficiently
rebutted by the regional medical officer’s findings that Hodgkins
disease is a disease of the node and non-nodal lymphatic tissues, the etiology
of which is unknown and its causal relation to the employment is still open to
further studies (pp. 27-28, rec. of WCC, RO7-18373).  The facts are clear and uncontroverted
that deceased employee Magno Baterna
died on October 25, 1964 and that his widow, petitioner herein, filed her claim
for death compensation on October 22, 1974 – a period of 9 years, 11 months,
and 27 days after employee’s death, which is certainly well within the ten-year
period prescribed by law for the filing of such claim.

It would appear that the
Commission has adopted private respondent’s contention that the ten-year
prescriptive period should be reckoned from January 6, 1964, the date when deceased employee was
disabled due to illness which caused his separation from the service and
ultimately his death.  But this argument
is clearly untenable.  This is a claim
for death benefits.  Logically, the
prescriptive period should run from the date of employee’s death and not from
the date when he contracted the illness.

Likewise of no merit is
respondent company’s argument that petitioner is barred from claiming death
compensation because she has failed to make a demand for such claim within 3
months after employee’s death in accordance with the Workmen’s Compensation
Act.  This COURT has ruled that the failure
to file the claim within the period provided in Section 24 of the Workmen’s
Compensation Act does not affect the jurisdiction of the Commission to
entertain said claim, more especially where there is no showing that the
employer sustained damage by such delay or failure (ibid).

Finally, this COURT has given due course to this petition pending
resolution by respondent Commission of a motion for reconsideration filed by
petitioner on February 2, 1975, the same date when she received a copy of the
Commission’s decision.  Hence, respondent
company’s contention that this petition has been filed beyond the reglementary period is baseless.

WHEREFORE, THE DECISION OF RESPONDENT WORKMEN’S
COMPENSATION COMMISSION IS HEREBY REVERSED AND SET ASIDE AND RESPONDENT
BOGO-MEDELLIN MILLING CO., INC. IS HEREBY ORDERED TO PAY:

1.  CLAIMANT SULPICIA BATERNA:

A.  THE SUM OF SIX THOUSAND PESOS (P6,000.00);

B.  EXPENSES FOR MEDICAL AND HOSPITAL SERVICES
SUPPORTED BY PROPER RECEIPTS;

2.  ATTY. FROILAN QUIJANO, CLAIMANT’S COUNSEL,
ATTORNEY’S FEES EQUIVALENT TO TEN PERCENT (10%) OF THE RECOVERABLE AMOUNT;

3.  THE WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION,
SIXTY-ONE (P61.00) PESOS AS
ADMINISTRATIVE FEE; AND

4.  THE COSTS.

SO ORDERED.

Teehankee, (Chairman), Muñoz Palma, Concepcion, Jr., and Martin, JJ., concur.