MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY, PETITIONER, VS. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.

Mariano Canalda was employed as trackman in the Manila Railroad
Company on March 16, 1946. His daily work consisted in cutting grasses
and weeds covering the railroad tracks, changing railroad ties, raising
the rails, and shovelling stones and gravel under the rail ties to
prevent them from sagging. He has never been absent from his work
except for one month when he was operated on for appendicitis. In the
physical examination made on him on August 19, 1949, he was found to be
free from any illness, while his lungs were dear of any tubercular
infection. His healthy condition remained the same until his medical
examination on August 16, 1958.

On April 23, 1959, while performing his usual work, Canalda was
overtaken by the rain and as a result he was not able to report for
work. On April 28, 1959, he was brought to the Camarines Sur Provincial
Hospital at Naga City where he was treated by Dr. Jose Arenas, but the
treatment failed and six days thereafter he died of lobar pneumonia.

On February 4, 1960, the heirs of the deceased filed a complaint for
compensation pursuant to law, but the claim was denied by the hearing
officer on the ground that the death of Mariano Canalda was not
compensable. On appeal taken by the claimants, Commissioner N. Baens
Del Bosario reversed the decision and awarded to the claimants the
amount of P3,744.00 as death benefits and P200.00 as burial expenses.
She further ordered the company to pay the Commission the amount of
P38.00 as Commission fees. This decision having been affirmed by the
Commission en bane, the company interposed the present petition for
review.

The issues posed by the company are: (1) whether the death of
Canalda arose in the course of his employment and, therefore,
compensable; and (2) whether the claim can be taken cognizance of by
the Workmen’s Compensation Commission it appearing that the same was
not filed within the 3-month period required by Section 24 of the
Workmen’s Compensation Act, as amended.

The first issue raised should be answered in the affirmative. While
it is true that lobar pneumonia is directly caused by the virus known
as pneumococcus, and as such is not an occupational disease,
it cannot however toe denied that the sickness which brought the
deceased to his grave was contracted in the course of his employment as
shown by the fact that while working and perspiring under the heat of
the sun on April 23, 1959, he was suddenly overtaken by a heavy
downpour as a consequence of which he fell sick of pneumonia and died
several days thereafter. The circumstance that he had been doing the
same work and exposed to the same inconvenience for thirteen years and
has not been afflicted with such sickness during that time, is of no
moment for it is possible that his physical resistance then was strong
and could repel the onslaught of the sickness, but that on the
occasion in question the rain caught up with him when his resistance
was low and contracted the sickness that resulted in his death. The
stubborn fact, however,. is that when he contracted the sickness he was
well in the course of his employment as he was doing then his usual
daily chore and so it is but fair that he be compensated as required by
law. We fully agree with the following comment of Commissioner Del
Rosario:

“We believe, there can be no more positive and
convincing proof of the fact that the deceased’s death in. this case
was work-connected than the very finding that on April 23, 1959, the
deceased was overtaken by a heavy downpour while performing his work as
trackman. Indeed, one need not possess a proficient knowledge of
medicine to arrive at the conclusion that any person working under the
heat of the sun and perspiring, if suddenly overtaken by a heavy
downpour, is likely to catch cold which may eventually develop into
pneumonia. And the ensuing illness or death, is certainly one arising
out of and in the course of his employment. This, we gathered from the
records, was precisely what happened to the deceased Canalda.
Consequently, we find ourselves without any alternative but to reverse
the decision under consideration.”

As regards the second issue, the record shows that when Mariano
Canalda failed to report for work, his foreman was notified of his
sickness and of his treatment at the Provincial Hospital of Camarines
Sur, the medical clinic where the company usually sends its employees
and laborers. Such information is a sufficient notice for the company
to submit to the Commission the report that the law requires regarding
the sickness or death of an employee or laborer. In spite of this
notice, however, the company remained silent and failed to give to the
Commission the report required by Section 37 of the Workmen’s
Compensation Act. Because of such failure, the company is deemed to
have waived its defense that the claim is not compensable because of
the claimant’s failure to file it within the statutory period.

“* * * Moreover, it appears that the petitioner did
not submit the required employer’s report of accident or sickness which
would have served as petitioner’s answer in the compensation
proceedings; and such failure may be deemed as a waiver of the defense
that the claim for compensation was not filed within the statutory
period.” (Martha Lumber Mill, Inc. vs. Romana V. Lagradante, et al., 99 Phil., 434).

Wherefore, the decision appealed from is affirmed without pronouncement as to costs.

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