CATALINA EVANGELISTA, PETITIONER, VS. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION AND REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES (BUREAU OF PUBLIC SCHOOLS), RESPONDENTS.

Petition for review on certiorari (treated as a special
civil action by resolution of the Supreme Court dated July 12, 1976) of the
decision of the respondent Workmen’s Compensation Commission in, RO4WC-Case No.
166844, dated March 17, 1976, which affirmed the Order of the Acting Referee of
the Department of Labor, Regional Office No. 4, Manila, dismissing the claim of
the petitioner on the ground that the claim states no valid cause of action and
that there is no evidence which would warrant the issuance of an award.

The decision of the respondent Commission narrates the facts of
the case thus:

“In an Order dated October
14, 1975, this case was dismissed on the ground that the claim
states no valid cause of action and neither is there any evidence on record
which would warrant the issuance of an award. 
Claimant appealed, hence this review.

“We find on review that claimant was formerly employed as
teacher since 1939 up to January 6,
1973 when she retired from the service.  She was 61 years old at the time she
retired.  In her notice of sickness and
claim for compensation she alleged that she suffered in 1972 illnesses of
rheumatic heart disease, congestive heart failure, mitral
insufficiency, eye disease, hypertension and nausea and general body pain on
account of which she stopped working on January 8, 1972.  Her service record however reveals that
despite these ail­ments she remained employed and entitled to her regular
salary until the date of her retirement effective January 6, 1973. 
There was therefore no disability nor impairment or loss of her earning
capacity although she was allegedly suffering from the aforementioned diseases.  When she ceased employment from respondent by
virtue of her optional retirement she was already more than 60 years of age and
considering that her alleged ailments occurred at this time of her life, and
therefore must be attributable to her aging process, no complications having
been proved to have set in nor evidence of any
hospitalization or unpaid sick leaves prior to her retirement, we find no legal
and factual basis for granting an award of disability compensation benefits
under the law.” (Pp. 19-20, rec.).

The respondent urges that the dismissal of the Workmen’s
Compensation Commission of the claim of petitioner was primarily based on its
findings that as per service records of herein petitioner, she was employed and
was receiving her regular salary until the date of her retirement on January 6,
1973; that the findings of the Commission are confirmed by the certification of
the District Supervisor that petitioner was teaching Grade I class at the Sto. Tomas Central
School up to her retirement; and
that the Commission did not find any evidence in her records showing any
hospitalization or of unpaid sick leave prior to her optional retirement.

It is an undisputed fact that petitioner, Cata­lina Evangelista,
was employed as a public school teacher of the respondent Bureau of Public
Schools since 1939 up to the time of her retirement on January 6, 1973 at age
61, with a monthly salary of P316.00; that petitioner has been feeling the
symptoms of general body pain, congestive heart failure, hypertension and eye
disease; that sometime on October 5, 1972, petitioner suffered a mild hyper­tension
attack, congestive heart failure and general body pain, on account of which she
stopped working and went on sick leave until she retired on January 6, 1973.

The above facts are embodied in a Physician’s Report of Dr. Enrico G. Recio, as well as the
medical certificates issued by Dr. Alfonso Chan of the National
Orthopedic Hospital.

Likewise, in the Employer’s Report, the respondent Bureau of Public
Schools signified its intention not to controvert the, right of claimant to
compensation.  It will be observed that
in Items 20 & 21 of the Employer’s Report, it states therein that the date
when disability began was on October
5, 1972.

Considering the substantial evidence on record — the Physician’s
Report, the Employer’s Report, the medical certificates issued by her attending
physicians, Dr. Alfonso Chan of the National Orthopedic Hospital, Quezon City, and Dr. Enrico G. Recio of Sto. Tomas Health Center,
Batangas, and the sick leave applica­tion of the
petitioner — We believe that compensation benefits should be awarded to the
claimant/petitioner.

It will be observed that physician’s report of petitioner’s
illness contains all the facts obtaining. 
WE believe that the physician’s report is the best evidence that
petitioner can submit under the circum­stances. 
For, under Section 23 of Act No. 3428, the Workmen’s Compensation Act,
as amended, provides thus:

“After receiving an injury or con­tracting sickness and during
the period of his disability and rehabilitation, the laborer shall at
reasonable times and places submit to examination by a duly qualified physician
or surgeon and rehabilitation technician designated and paid by the employer or
insurance carrier.  The laborer shall be
entitled to have a physician or surgeon and rehabilitation technician
designated by himself at such examination.  x x“

As above intimated, the Bureau of Public Schools, claimant’s
employer, chose not to controvert her claim, thus waiving all
non-jurisdictional defenses.

Furthermore, the respondent employer has not destroyed the
presumption of compensability.  In the case of Industrial Textile Manufacturing Company of the Philippines vs. Reyes Corp. 
(L-21969, Aug. 31, 1966, 17 SCRA 1104, 1109), the Supreme Court held:

“At any rate, the law presumes, in the absence of substantial
evidence to the contrary, that the claim is com­pensable.  The burden to disconnect by substantial
evidence the injury or sick­ness from employment, is
laid at the employer’s door.  So rigid is
the rule that even where the cause of the employee’s death is unknown — as petitioners claim — ­the right to compensate subsists.  Reason for this is that the Workmen’s
Compensation Act is a social (legislation; it is designed to give relief to the
workmen; therefore, to effectuate its purpose, it must be liberally
construed” (Citing Sec. 44[1], Workmen’s Compensation Act; Vda. de Acosta, et al., vs. Workmen’s Compensation
Commission, et al., L.19772, Oct. 31, 1964, 12 SCRA 168, 173).

WHEREFORE, THE DECISION OF THE RESPONDENT WORKMEN’S
COMPENSATION COMMISSION IS HEREBY SET ASIDE AND THE RESPONDENT BUREAU OF PUBLIC
SCHOOL IS HEREBY DIRECTED TO PAY:

A.  THE CLAIMANT [1] THE SUM OF SIX THOUSAND (P6,000.00) PESOS AS DISABILITY COMPENSATION; AND [2] HER
EXPENSES FOR MEDICAL, SURGICAL AND HOSPITAL SERVICES SUPPORTED BY PROPER
RECEIPTS;

B.  CLAIMANT’S COUNSEL THE AMOUNT OF SIX HUNDRED
(P600.00) AS ATTORNEY’S FEES; AND

C.  THE WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COM­MISSION
THE SUM OF SIXTY-ONE (P61.00) AS ADMINISTRATIVE FEE.

SO ORDERED.

Teehankee, (Chairman), Muñoz Palma, Martin, Fernandez, and Guerrero, JJ., concur.