C. A. CHIONG SHIPPING CO. & C. A. CHIONG, PETITIONERS, VS. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION AND MARIA SALVERON VDA. DE MADULA, RESPONDENTS.

Appeal from a decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission
dated December 14, 1964
ordering C.A. Chiong Shipping Co. and C. A. Chiong:

“1. To pay to the claimants, thru this Commission, the amount of
FOUR THOUSAND and NO/100 (4,000.00) PESOS in lump sum as com­pensation;

“2. To pay to the claimants’ legal counsel, thru this Commission,
the sum of THREE HUNDRED and NO/100 (300.00) PESOS as attorney’s fees and

“3. To pay to the Workmen’s Compensa­tion Fund the amount of
Forty-One and NO/100 (P41.00) PESOS
as fees pursuant to section 55 of the
Act.

SO ORDERED.”

It appears that the late Joaquin Madula
was employed by C.A. Chiong Shipping Co. as Chief
Engineer since 1954 at a monthly salary of P420.00.  Before he was employed he was physically
examined and was found to be physically fit for the job.  As Chief Engineer
he had two assistants and three oilers; the
assistants worked under his supervision, while the oilers
were under his and his assistants super­vision.

While their vessel was sailing Madula,
as Chief En­gineer, generally stayed at the deck, while his assistants and oilers worked in the engine room – a place considerably
hotter than the other places aboard.

In 1957 Madula was physically examined
by Dr. Dolor­fino of the Cebu
Chest Center and was found to be afflicted with pulmonary tuberculosis.  This notwithstanding, he was only advised not
to perform heavy work.  Thereafter he sub­mitted
himself to periodic medical treatment by the same physician, but in 1959 his
sickness became worse and on August 8 of that year he died leaving a widow and
nine children, all of them wholly dependent upon his monthly earnings.

In due
time his dependents filed the corresponding claim for compensation, which the
employer controverted.

The issue submitted below
was whether or not the pulmonary tuberculosis which caused Madula’s
death on August 8, 1959 was directly caused by, or was, at least, aggravated by
the nature of his employment.  Upon the
evidence presented the Hearing Officer arrived at the conclusion that the
sickness that took Madula to his grave was neither
directly traceable to the nature of his work nor aggravated by it, and, as a
result, dismissed the claim as not being compensable.  On appeal the Commission en banc reversed
said decision, the Commission, upon con­sideration of the evidence, having
arrived at the conclusion that while the tuberculosis that caused the death of Madula was not caused exclusively by the nature of his work
or employment, the least that could be said is that the latter aggravated it.

We agree with the Commission.

The main reason in support of the Hearing Officer’s decision dismissing the claim for
compensation was that the deceased, personally,
did not perform heavy work, end did not stay in the engine room except when the
vessel was docking or leaving ports of
call.  The following consi­derations of
the Commission, through Commissioner Cesario Perez, fully answer this argument:

“However, we are of the opinion that the claimants’ claim for
compensation should have been upheld on the theory of aggravation.  Even granting that the varied duties of the
deceased as Chief Engineer did not require extraordinary physical effort, it
does not follow that his pulmonary tuberculosis could not have been aggrava­ted by the nature, conditions and incidents of his employment to the
extent of causing his death.  Experience
shows that travel by boat may expose one to continuous jarring, specially in a rough sea (certainly, from 1957 when the late
Joaquin Madula was first found suffering from pulmonary tuberculosis
to August 8, 1959, when he
succumbed to said illness, there must have been many such rough sea).  This is true even for those who are
accustomed to see voyages as the deceased. 
And if we add the fact that a person afflicted with pulmonary
tuberculosis, more so in an adversed stage, must not
only have complete rest but should also refrain from performing the work
activities of even a normal individual, the only logical conclusion that may be
drawn from the facts end circumstances obtaining in the
case at bar is that the pulmonary tuberculosis which caused the death of Joaquin Madula
was aggravated by the nature, conditions
and incidents of his employment with the respondent.  As a matter of fact at the time death overtook
him on August 8, 1959, he was on
board the M/S ‘Eugene’ where he worked as Chief Engineer.  The circumstances that
factors other than his
employment might have also contributed to the aggravation of his pulmonary
tuberculo­sis is of no moment, because under the Workmen’s Compensation Law,
the employment need not be the only
cause of the acceleration of an illness to entitle one to
compensation; it is suffi­cient
if the employment contributed even in a small way to the worsening of the disease which resulted in disability or
death.  (The Law of Workmen’s Compensation by Arthur Lar­sen,
Vol. I, p. 50).

“Moreover, even assuring that there exists some doubt as to
the deceased pulmo­nary tuberculosis having been aggravated by his employment;
such doubt, for the purpose of carrying out the intents of the Workmen’s
Compensation Act, as amended, should be re­solved in favor of the
claimants.  (Adoracion Francisco, et al., v. Feliciano Consing, 63 Phil. 354; Afable v.
Loyola, G.R. No. L-7789, May 27, 1955; Enoria vs.
Atlantic Gulf, 30 O.G., Sept. 15, 1951, as cited in Batangas
Transportation Co. v. Josefina N. vda. de Ri­vera, et al., G.R. No. L-7658, May 8, 1956).

“We, therefore, find that Joaquin Madula’s pulmonary
tuberculosis which caused his death was aggravated by the nature, conditions
and incidents of his employment with the respondent.”

The errors now attributed
to the Commission by peti­tioners
are the following:

“I. That the decision rendered by the respondent Workmen’s
Compensation Commission is not supported by evidence mounting to grave abuse of
discretion, hence void.

“II. That the findings of facts and conclusion
arrived et by the Hearing Offi­cer which has been set aside by respondent
Workmen’s Compensation Commission is not in accordance with settled rules,
jurisprudence.”

As may be readily seen, the questions posed by peti­tioners go to
the sufficiency or insufficiency of the evidence of record to justify the
decision appealed from.  We have examined
that evidence and found it to be suffi­cient substantially to justify the
findings and conclu­sions of the Commission.

WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is affirmed, with
costs.

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