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

National Power Corporation versus Workmen's Compensation Commission

The Case

This is a petition for review brought by the National Power Corporation against the Workmen's Compensation Commission and the widow and children of its deceased employee, Enrique Gulmatico. The employer does not deny that the illness which killed its employee is compensable; it resists the claim on a single ground, that the claim was filed long after the period fixed by the Workmen's Compensation Act and that the Commission therefore never acquired jurisdiction over it. The case matters because it teaches when an employer loses the defense of prescription, and it shows how the Supreme Court reads the Workmen's Compensation Act in favor of the workingman.

Procedural History

The widow, Dominica Luna, filed a claim for compensation with the branch office of the Department of Labor in Uigan City. After receiving the evidence, the hearing officer rendered a decision awarding the claimant four thousand pesos as compensation and two hundred pesos as burial expenses. The employer appealed to the Workmen's Compensation Commission, which affirmed the award and added the payment of the reglementary review fees under Section 55 of the Act. The employer then came to the Supreme Court on a petition for review.

Facts

Enrique Gulmatico was employed by the National Power Corporation as assistant stockman at a salary of one hundred forty pesos a month. He checked the materials and supplies bought by his employer, opened boxes, issued spare parts, arranged the equipment in the warehouse, acted as stockkeeper, and ran errands within the plant compound. He often rendered overtime service on emergency cases, often missed his lunch on time, and in the afternoons had to stay until all the workers had left so that he could close the warehouse.

On the fourth of November, nineteen hundred fifty-six, a Sunday, the shift supervisor requested him to work overtime. That day he manually pumped gasoline to different vehicles because there was a power shutdown. He felt stomach pain when he went home for lunch but reported for work in the afternoon. When he arrived home at seven o'clock in the evening he experienced severe stomach pain accompanied by vomiting of food previously taken. The plant physician treated him temporarily, but he had to be transferred to a hospital for an operation. The operation was not performed because of a sudden drop in his blood pressure which made him lose consciousness. He never regained consciousness and died shortly thereafter. The physician certified that his death was due to a ruptured chronic perforating gastric ulcer on the lesser curvature of the stomach, with acute generalized peritonitis and toxemia.

There was no evidence that he had the disease when he entered the service in nineteen hundred fifty-one, but he began feeling its symptoms in nineteen hundred fifty-five, and from that time the disease aggravated until he died in nineteen hundred fifty-six, notwithstanding the medical treatment extended by the employer's physician. The deceased died on the fifth of November, nineteen hundred fifty-six, but the claim was filed only on the second of December, nineteen hundred fifty-eight, more than two years after his death. The employer filed its Employer's Report only on the eleventh of December, nineteen hundred fifty-eight, after the claimant had filed her notice and claim for compensation.

Issues

• Whether or not the Workmen's Compensation Commission acquired jurisdiction over the claim notwithstanding that it was filed more than three months after the death of the employee.
• Whether or not the employer is estopped from setting up the defense that the claim was filed out of time, having failed to file its Employer's Report as required by the Act.
• Whether or not the illness which caused the employee's death is compensable under the Workmen's Compensation Act.

Applicable Provisions

Section 21 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, as amended, fixes the period for filing a claim in case of death, and the employer invokes it as the ground of prescription:

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.

This provision is the very basis of the employer's defense, and the Court's ruling turns on whether that defense was waived.

Section 55 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, as amended, governs the review fees which the Commission added to the award:

The reglementary review fees under Section 55 of the Act.

The Commission ordered the employer to pay these fees in addition to the award, and the Supreme Court affirmed that order.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court did not sustain the employer's claim of prescription. It held that the employer is estopped to allege that the claim was filed out of time, because it knew from the beginning that Enrique Gulmatico had died. The widow had notified the employer, and the employer's representatives, its company physician and its plant supervisor, attended the interment. The employer filed its Employer's Report only on the eleventh of December, nineteen hundred fifty-eight, after the claimant had already filed her notice and claim for compensation.

On the second issue, the Court held that the filing of the Employer's Report is obligatory on the part of the employer, and that non-compliance therewith may be deemed a waiver of the defense that the claim for compensation was not filed within the statutory period. The Court found this in line with its earlier rulings, and it quoted its own language from the Martha Lumber Mill case:

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.

On the third issue, the Court held that while an ulcer is not as a rule an occupational disease, because it is not inherent in the nature of the work of the deceased, it was seriously aggravated by the irregular manner in which the work was performed, when he often missed his meals and on emergency occasions had to work overtime, thereby causing pain or spasm in his stomach. The Court noted the certification of the employer's own physician that on the day previous to the onset of the illness the patient worked overtime at the request of the shift supervisor, manually pumping gasoline to different vehicles because of a power shutdown, and that he inhaled gasoline gas the whole day, which offended his respiratory system and induced nausea. A sickness contracted in the course of employment and aggravated because of the irregular and intemperate nature of the work imposed upon the employee by the needs of the service is compensable within the purview of the law.

Doctrine

An employer who fails to file the Employer's Report required by the Workmen's Compensation Act may be deemed to have waived the defense that the claim for compensation was not filed within the statutory period. The employer cannot invoke prescription under Section 21 of the Act when it knew of the employee's death from the beginning, was notified by the widow, and was represented at the interment by its own physician and plant supervisor, and filed its report only after the claim had already been lodged.

A disease that is not occupational in nature may still be compensable when it is contracted in the course of employment and is aggravated by the irregular and intemperate nature of the work imposed upon the employee by the needs of the service.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision appealed from, with no costs, so the widow and children prevailed and the employer was ordered to pay the compensation, the burial expenses, and the review fees.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing is that failure to file the Employer's Report is a waiver of the defense that the claim was filed out of time. Examiners use this case to test the prescriptive period under Section 21 of the Workmen's Compensation Act and the rule that a non-occupational disease aggravated by the nature of the work is compensable.