EMIGDIO BAÑEZ, PETITIONER, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES (BUREAU OF PUBLIC SCHOOLS), WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, DEFUNCT; AND/OR THE SECRETARY OF LABOR; AND/OR THE COMP…

This
is a petition to review the decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission which reversed the decision of the
Acting Referee of Regional Office No. 4, Manila, in R04-WCU Case No. 133139 entitled “Emigdio Bañez, Claimant, versus,
Republic of the Philippines (Bureau of Public Schools), Respondent”
and dismissed the claim for compensation for lack of merit.^[1]

On July 6,
1972, Emigdio Bañez filed a notice and
claim with the Workmen’s Compensation Unit, Regional Office No. 4 at Manila, to recover compensation by reason of his
illnesses of PTB and cardiac insufficiency which allegedly supervened during
his employment as classroom teacher with the Bureau of Public Schools.  The respondent Bureau of Public Schools did
not controvert the claim.  The Acting
Referee, Celso C. Ladera,
rendered a decision dated October 13, 1975, the dispositive
part of which reads:

“DECISION is therefore entered in favor of the claimant and
the respondent is hereby ordered to pay the following:

1.       To
the claimant, thru this Office, the amount of P3,538.80 as compensation under
Section 14 of the Act;

2.       To
Atty. Felizardo Moreno, counsel for the claimant, the
amount of P176.90 as Attorney’s fee pursuant to Section 31 of the Act; and,

3.       To this Office, the amount of P36.00 as fee
pursuant to Section 55 of the Act.

SO ORDERED.

Manila, Philippines,
October 13, 1975.”^[2]

The respondent, Republic
of the Philippines (Bureau of Public Schools), filed a motion
to set aside the award.  Said motion was
denied and the case was elevated to the Workmen’s Compensation Commission on
appeal.

The Workmen’s
Compensation Commission rendered a decision dated December 31, 1975 which reversed the decision of the Acting
Referee and dismissed the case for lack of merit.^[3]

The record of the case
shows that the claimant, Emigdio Bañez,
now petitioner, was employed by the respondent, Bureau of Public Schools, as
public school teacher with a salary of P254.00 per month; that sometime in
1968, the claimant became sick of PTB and cardiac insufficiency by reason of
which he went on sick leave of absence until he retired on August 5, 1968 at
the age of 63 years; that according to the physician’s report, Exhibit
“C”, the claimant’s ailments were due to, and aggravated by, his
employment.

The instant petition for certiorari
was filed on December 22, 1976.

The respondents contend
that the petition for certiorari was filed out of time in as much as the
petitioner received a copy of the decision of the Workmen’s Compensation
Commission on March 4, 1976. 
Moreover, when the petitioner filed his claim on July 6,
1972 he was no
longer employed by the respondent, Bureau of Public Schools, because he had
retired earlier on August 5, 1968.

The petitioner alleged that
he could not file his petition for certiorari with this Court before December
22, 1976 because:

“(4)  On
December 31, 1976, the defunct Commission, thru then Associate Medical
Commissioner Herminia Castelo-Sotto
M.D., concurred in by Associate Commissioner Eugenio
I. Sagmit, Jr., rendered a decision in the said case,
reversing the decision promulgated by Regional Referee Celso
C. Ladera and in effect dismissed the petitioner’s
claim, allegedly for lack of merit.  A
certified duplicate copy of the said Decision is hereto attached as Annex ‘C’
and ‘C-1’ and also made integral part of this petition.

“(5)  The undersigned counsel received a copy of the
defunct Commissioner’s Decision only last March 4, 1976, and within the reglementary period to interpose appeal and/or petition for
review before the Honorable Court, undersigned counsel dispatched his
representatives to the Offices of the then Workmen’s Compensation Commission to
ascertain and verify the correct status of the case only to be informed and
advised to wait until June or July, 1976 when all the records of the WCC would
then be transferred to the Office of the Secretary of Labor and thus to make
their follow up with the said Office.

“(6)  Come June and July, 1976 and the personnel of
the Department of Labor in Intramuros, Manila were
still in a quandary as to how they would entertain claimants following up their
claims and thus, undersigned’s representatives were again made to come back
some other days.

“(7)  It was only sometime in September, 1976 that a
certain group of personnel which was constituted by no less than the Secretary
of Labor himself and was named as the COMPENSATION APPEALS & REVIEW STAFF
to entertain claimants in workmen’s compensation cases.  Nevertheless records of cases could not readily
be found and undersigned’s counsel were advised to
come back some other day.

“(8)  On December 6, 1976, undersigned counsel filed
an ex-parte petition for issuance of certified xerox copies of documents to be used in the instant
petition for certiorari, a certified duplicate copy of which is hereto
attached as Annex ‘D’ and also made
integral part of this petition.”^[4]

The foregoing explanation of petitioner
is reasonable.  It is a fact that upon
the abolition of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission, there was a period when
it was difficult to obtain copies of the records because of the transfer of the
same to the office of the then Secretary of Labor.  The petitioner acted as soon as he obtained
the records necessary to support his petition for certiorari.  In as much as the claim of the petitioner is
manifestly meritorious, there is basis for the exercise of the inherent
authority of this Court to suspend the rules and to exempt this case from said
rules.^[5]

The contention of the respondents that the claimant cannot
recover any compensation because when he filed the claim he had retired from
the Bureau of Public Schools has no
merit.  This Court has previously held
that a claim can be filed within ten (10) years from the date that the
disability started.^[6]

It is not disputed that
the ailments of the petitioner supervened during his employment with the
respondent Bureau of Public Schools. 
Hence, there is a disputable presumption that the claim is compensable.^[7] The claimant is relieved of the duty to
prove causation as it is legally presumed that the illness arose out of the
employment.  The burden of proof is
shifted to the employer to show that the ailment is not compensable.^[8] Moreover, the petitioner presented the
physician’s report “Exhibit C”, showing that his illnesses were
caused by his employment with the Bureau of Public Schools.  The respondent, Bureau of Public Schools, not
only failed to adduce evidence to show that the ailment of the petitioner was
neither caused nor aggravated by his employment as public school teacher but
failed to controvert the claim.

The Acting Referee
correctly computed the compensation of the petitioner as follows:

“Under Section 14 of the Act, the claimant is entitled to P3,538.80 as compensation computed at 60% of his average
weekly wage for 104 weeks.”^[9]

The petitioner is also entitled to reimbursement of his
hospitalization and medical expenses upon presentation of proper receipts.

WHEREFORE, the decision of the Workmen’s Compensation
Commission sought to be reviewed is hereby set aside and the respondent,
Republic of the Philippines (Bureau of Public Schools), is ordered:

1.     
To pay the claimant the amount of Three Thousand
Five Hundred Thirty Eight Pesos and Eighty Centavos (P3,538.80) as compensation
benefit;

2.     
To reimburse the petitioner hospitalization and
medical expenses supported by proper receipts;

3.     
To pay counsel for the petitioner attorney’s
fees in the amount of Three Hundred Fifty Three Pesos (P353.00); and

4.     
To pay the successor of the Workmen’s
Compensation Commission the amount of Sixty-one Pesos (P61.00) as
administrative fee.

SO ORDERED.

Makasiar, Guerrero, De Castro, and Melencio-Herrera,
JJ., concur.

Teehankee, J., (Chairman), no part.

^[1]
Annex “C”, Rollo, pp. 16-17.

^[2]
Annex “A-1” Rollo, p. 12.

^[3]
Annex “C”, Rollo, pp. 16-17.

^[4]
Petition, Rollo,
pp. 3-4.

^[5]
Philippine Blooming Mills Employees Organization vs. Philippine Blooming
Mills Co., Inc., 51 SCRA 189.

^[6]
Leonardo vs. Workmen’s Compensation Commission, 88 SCRA 58.

^[7]
44 Workmen’s Compensation Act; Justiniano
vs. Workmen’s Compensation Commission, 18 SCRA 677.

^[8]
Balanga vs.
Workmen’s Compensation Commission, et al., 83 SCRA 721.

^[9]
Annex “A”, Rollo, p. 11.