SEVEN-UP BOTTLING COMPANY OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. VIRGILIO RIMERATA AND THE WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, RESPONDENTS.

Petition to review the decision of the Workmen’s Com­pensation
Commission ordering herein petitioner –

“1.  To pay claimant, thru this Office, the sum of
P3,041.66 (60% of P35.10 for 144 3/7 weeks) as
compensation under Section 14 of Act 3428, as amended, and a weekly
compensation of P21.06 from January 16, 1965 until his disease is pronounced
arrested or cured by competent authority but the total amount of compensation
due shall in no way exceed P4,000.00 maximum amount allowable by law;

“2.  To provide the claimant whatever necessary
medical, surgical, and hospital services and supplies he would need under
Section 13 of the Act; and to reimburse claimant, through this Office, the sum
of TWO HUNDRED PESOS (P200.00) as medical expenses incurred by him; and

“3.  To pay to the Workmen’s Compensation Fund the
sum of P36.00 (plus P5.00 cost of the review) as fees under Section 55 of the
Act.”

Claimant Virgilio Rimerata
worked as laboratory helper in petitioner’s production department from March 17, 1953 until April 6, 1962 when he had to stop
working due to the fact that he was suffering from peptic ulcer.  His duties, inter alia,
were to prepare sugar and taste the syrup for correction in accordance with the
established standard; to weigh citric acid, sodium citrate, carbonated water, lemolime and alcohol, and to place and mix said ingredients
in an electrically operated mixing tank and then taste the mixture; to pour
acoustic soda into the bottle washing machine; to change the water analyzer in
the water tank; end carry, in a day of eight working hours, 16-54 sacks of
sugar weighing 100 lbs. each along a distance of about ten meters.  He worked eight hours a day, six days a week,
his last wage rate being P5.85 daily.  After three or four years he felt the
development of pain in his abdominal region and when on April 6, 1962 he
suffered stomach pains end vomited while working in the plant he was subjected
to immediate treatment by his employer’s physician, Dr. Gil Angeles, who
diagnosed his illness as peptic ulcer, and advised his confinement at
home.  As despite medical treatment until
June 26, 1962 by Dr.
Angeles his condition showed no improvement, he placed himself in the hands of
Drs. Jose C. Almeda and Clodualdo
S. Manas, both of Laguna, and of Dr. Charles S. Harn of St. Luke’s Hospital in Manila.  Finally, on De­cember 15, 1962 petitioner terminated his services due
to his continued illness.

Upon the facts set forth above, the Workmen’s Com­pensation
Commission rendered the appealed decision which petitioner now urges us to
reverse claiming that said Commission committed the following errors:

“I

That the Commission erred in finding that the claimant, Virgilio Rimerata, was disabled
for work up to January 15, 1965,
and in not holding that in the absence of any evidence, it can not be presumed
that he was disabled for work.

II

That the Commission erred in not holding that the claimant has the
burden of proving that his disability for labor persisted up to January 15,
1965 or thereafter, and that the petitioner does not have the burden of showing
that such disability for labor did not persist up to the aforesaid date or
beyond thereof.

Ill

That the Commission erred in finding t the claimant’s peptic ulcer
must have developed through the years that he was employed by the petitioner
tasting the syrup preparation and mixture of the 7-up ingredients.

IV

That the Commission erred in finding that the ailment of the
claimant is com­pensable.”

In the third assignment of error petitioner’s con­tention is that
Rimerata’s peptic ulcer was not caused by nor was it
connected with his work.  We find this to
be untenable.  The testimony of Ruben
Rodriguez, foreman in the production department of petitioner’s factory,
corroborated by that of petitioner’s Assistant Manager, Crispin Peralta, in
conjunction with that of Dr. Harn in relation to his
medical certificate Exhibit B-2, sufficiently show that the ingredients which Rimerata had to take or swallow in connection with the
discharge of his duties as petitioner’s employee probably irritated the linings
of his stomach and produced or, at least, aggravated the peptic ulcer he was
found to be suffering from.  In this
connection, it is to be borne in mind that, for a claim to be compensable, it
is sufficient that the employee’s ailment is shown to be attributable to, or
reasonably con­nected with or was aggravated by the nature and conditions of
his work.  This test has been
sufficiently met in the present case.

The first and second assignments of error made in petitioner’s
brief raise but a mere question of evidence namely, who, as between petitioner,
on the one hand, and its employee, Rimerata, on the
other, has the burden of proof in connection with the question of when the
latter was disabled for work.  Whether it
was petitioner who had the burden of proving that Rimerata’s
disability for labor did not last until January 15, 1965, or whether it was Rimerata who had the burden of proving that his disability
for labor persisted up to said date, is of no great consequence in this case,
the Commission having found as a fact that such disability lasted until January
5, 1965.  This finding being, in our
opinion, supported by substan­tial evidence in the record may not now be
reviewed.

The fourth and last assignment of error is merely the consequence
of the previous three and need no further discussion.

WHEREFORE, the appealed decision being in accordance with
law and the evidence, the same is hereby affirmed, with costs.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Makalintal, Zaldivar, Sanchez,
Castro, Fernando, and Capistrano, JJ., concur.