NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.

Enrique Gulmatjco was employed as assistant stockman by the National Power
Corporation at a salary of P140.00 a month. As such his duties were to check all
materials and supplies that are bought by his employer, open boxes, issue spare
parts and other supplies, arrange the equipment in the warehouse, act as
stockkeeper, and attend to other errands within the plant compound to expedite
the dispatch of requisition vouchers by the plant supervisor. Often times
Gulmatico renders overtime service on emergency cases when the plant needs
repairs to keep the work going. He often missed his lunch on time and in the
afternoons he had to stay until all workers had left so that he could close the
warehouse.

On November 4, 1956, a Sunday, the shift supervisor requested him to work
overtime. On that day he manually pumped gasoline to different vehicles. When he
went home for lunch he felt stomach pain but reported for work in the afternoon.
When he arrived home at seven o’clock in the evening of that day he experienced
severe stomach pain accompanied by “non-projectile vomiting of food previously
taken.” Dr. Echeverri, the plant physician, temporarily treated him, but he had
to be later transferred to the Avellanosa Hospital for operation. This, however,
was not performed because of a sudden drop of his blood pressure making him lose
consciousness. He never regained consciousness but died shortly thereafter. The
physician certified that his death was due to “ruptured chronic perforating
gastric ulcer on lesser curvature of the stomach, acute generalized peritoritis,
toxemia.”

As a consequence, the widow Dominica Luna, in her behalf and in that of her
children, filed with the Uigan City’s branch office of the Department of Labor a
claim for compensation pursuant to law. This was given Ylue course, and after
the reception of the evidence, hearing officer Luis B. Buendia rendered decision
awarding to claimant P4,000.00 as compensation and P200.00 as burial expenses.
The employer appealed to the Workmen’s Compensation Commission and, on November
6, 1961, Chairman Nieves Baens del Rosario, affirmed the award with additional
payment of the reglementary review fees under Section 55 of the Act. The case
is now before us on a petition for review.

At the outset, it should be stated that while as a rule ulcer is not an
occupational disease as it is not inherent in the nature of the work of the
deceased, the same was however seriously aggravated by the irregularity in which
it was performed when he often missed his meals and on emergency occasions he
had to work overtime thereby causing pain or spasm in his stomach. There is no
evidence that he had that disease when he entered petitioner’s service in 1951,
but he began feeling its symptoms since 1955, and from that time on it
aggravated until he died in 1956 notwithstanding the medical treatment extended
to him by his employer’s physician. And according to the certification of
petitioner’s physician, “on the day previous to the onset of the present illness
the patient worked overtime at the request of the shift supervisor. His work at
that time consisted of manual pumping of gasoline to different vehicles used in
the pliant and recording them. At that time there was a power shut-down and
manual pumping had to be used.” He inhaled gasoline gas the whole day which
offended his respiratory system and induced nausea. This sickness which was
contracted in the course of employment and was aggravated because of the
irregular and intemperate nature of the work which the dsceased had to perform
because of the needs of the service imposed upon him is compensable within the
purview of the law as found by the respondent Commission.

But the employer now disputes this claim not because the sickness that caused
the deceased’s death is compensable but because respondent Commission did not
acquire jurisdiction to act thereon considering that the claim was not filed
within the period prescribed by law. Thus, it is claimed that under Section 21
of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, as amended, a claim for compensation in case
of death shall be filed not later than three months thereafter, except only if
the employer has voluntarily made compensation payments where the claim may be
filed even after the required time limit. And here no such compensation payment
has been made. Indeed, the record shows that the deceased died on November 5,
1956, but the claim was only filed on December 2, 1958, or after more than two
years from the death of the deceased. This claim, therefore, according to
petitioner, has already prescribed and as such cannot serve as basis fcr
compensation.

But respondent Commisison met this argument correctly when it said:
“Respondent (now petitioner) is estopped to allege that the claim was filed out
of time, inasmuch as it knew from the beginning that Enrique Gulmatico died.
Besides having been notified by the widow, respondent, thru its representatives,
Dr. Echeverri, company physician, and Mr. Horacio Pascual, plant supervisor,
attended the interment of Enrique. The respondent filed its ‘Employer’s Report’
only on December 11, 1958 after claimant had filed her notice and claim for
compensation.” And in a subsequent resolution it also said: “The requirement of
filing its Employer’s Report is obligatory on the part of respondent;
non-compliance therewith may be deemed as a waiver of the defense that the claim
for compensation was not filed within the statutory period.

We have no quarrel with these pronouncements which are in line with our
interpretation of the law on this matter (Martha Lumber Mill, Inc. vs.
Lagradante, et al., 95) Phil. 434, June 27, 1956; Tan Lim Te vs. Workmen’s
Compensation Commissioner, et al., 104 Phil. 522). In the former case, we said:
“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.”

WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is affirmed. No costs.

Bengzon, C.J.. Barrera, Paredes, Dizon, Regala, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P.
and Zaldivar, JJ. concur.

Reyes, J.B.L., J., concurs in the result.