RODRIGO LANDAYAN, PETITIONER, VS. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION AND ATLANTIC GULF & PACIFIC CO. OF MANILA, INC., RESPONDENTS.

Petition for review^[1]
of the decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission in RO4-WCC Case No.
162523 which reversed the award of P6,000.00 made by the Acting Referee Vivencio Escarcha of Regional
Office No. 4 in favor of the petitioner.

Sometime in October, 1966, petitioner was employed as a carpenter
by the private respondent Atlantic Gulf & Pacific Co. of Manila, Inc.
(hereinafter referred to as respondent Company) with a salary of P8.00 a day
for six to seven days a week.  In June
1968, petitioner was was found by respondent
Company’s physician, Dr. Bataclan, to be suffering
from pulmonary tuberculosis.  He was
subsequently diagnosed by his attending physician, Dr. Amadeo
Jorge, to be sick of pulmonary tuberculosis, moderately advanced, active with
cavity, bronchiectasis.^[2]
His employment with the respondent Company was terminated on June 6, 1968.  Since that time, he has been out of work due
to his ailment.

On June 29, 1975,
he filed his claim for compensation together with the Physician’s Report.  Said claim was granted by the Acting Labor
Referee, Vivencio Escarcha,
in a decision rendered on October 29,
1975, the dispositive portion of which
reads:

“WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered
ordering the respondent Atlantic Gulf & Pacific Co. of Manila, Inc., to
pay, thru this Office in lump sum:

1)     
The Claimant the disability compensation in the
maximum sum of SIX THOUSAND PESOS (P6,000.00); and

2)     
To pay this Office the fee of SIXTY-ONE PESOS
(P61.00) pursuant to Section 55 of the Act, as amended.”

On October 28, 1975, the respondent Commission acting on the
motion for reconsideration filed by the respondent Company, reversed the
decision of the Acting Labor Referee and dismissed the case for lack of merit
on the ground that the Physician’s Report is not corroborated by laboratory
findings or chest x-ray conducted on the petitioner.

Hence, this petition for review grounded on the sole issue as to
whether or not a Physician’s Report is sufficient to support claim under Act
3428 as amended.

We reverse the decision of the respondent Commission.  The Physician’s Report^[3]
does not require that an x-ray examination or laboratory findings be attached
thereto.  Their absence in the Physician’s Report will not invalidate the
diagnosis appearing therein.  Moreover,
from the attending Physician’s Report, it can be logically inferred that a
previous x-ray examination was made otherwise the physician could not have
arrived at his diagnosis of the petitioner’s illness,^[4] as in the case at bar wherein the
following appears in the Physician’s Report:

“Diagnosis: PULMONARY TUBERCULOSIS, MODERATELY ADVANCED,
ACTIVE

Prognosis: GUARDED WITH CAVITY, BRONCHIECTASIS”

With the findings that the illness of
petitioner is moderately advanced and active which could easily be determined
by means of physical examination, x-ray or
laboratory findings is not indispensable.  Moreover, the records show that the
respondent Company’s physician, Dr. Bataclan, was the
first one who found the petitioner to be suffering from pulmonary tuberculosis,
which finding was the immediate cause of the termination of his services.  The respondent Company is therefore estopped from denying the said illness suffered by the
petitioner.  In this connection, since
the petitioner has complied with the requirements under Section 23 of the
Workmen’s Compensation Act^[5]
We find no reason to deny him the benefits provided for by the law.

Considering that the total disability of the petitioner resulting
from his illness has been duly established, he is therefore, entitled to compensation
under Sections 2 and 14 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act.^[6]

IN VIEW OF THE
FOREGOING, the judgment of
the respondent Commission is hereby reversed and set aside and the decision of
the Acting Referee of Regional Office No. 4, revived and reinstated with the
further modification that respondent Company should also pay petitioner medical
and hospital expenses duly receipted for until full recovery and to his lawyer
the amount of P600.00 as attorney’s fees.

SO ORDERED.

Teehankee, (Chairman), Makasiar, Antonio, and
Muñoz Palma, JJ., concur.

^[1]
Treated as special civil action per resolution dated July 23, 1976.

^[2]
Physician’s Report.

^[3]
Form No. 4 (Revised) of the Department of Labor.

^[4]
Rolando Flores vs. Workmen’s Compensation Commission and Liberty Manufacturing
Corp., L-41612.

^[5]
SEC. 23.  Medical and rehabilitative examination. – 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 and paid by himself at such
examination; but this right shall not be construed as denying to the physician or surgeon and
rehabilitation technician of the employer
or insurance carrier the right to visit the injured or sick laborer at
any reasonable time and under any reasonable conditions during his total disability
and period of rehabilitation.  In case an
injured or sick employee refuses to submit to, or does in any manner obstruct
the examination mentioned without justifiable cause, his right to proceed under
this Act shall be suspended until such refusal or obstruction shall cease, and
no compensation shall be payable for the entire time of such obstruction.

^[6]
SEC. 2.  Grounds for compensation. – When an employee suffers personal injury from any accident
arising out of and in the course of his employment, or contracts tuberculosis
or other illness directly caused by such employment, or either aggravated by or
the result of the nature of such employment, his employer shall pay
compensation in the sums and to the person hereinafter specified.  The right to compensation as provided in this
Act shall not be defeated or impaired on the ground that the death, injury or
disease was due to the negligence of a fellow servant or employee, without
prejudice to the right of the employer to proceed against the negligent party.

SEC. 14.  Total
disability. – In case
the injury or sickness causes temporary total disability for labor, the
employer shall, during such disability, pay to the injured employee a weekly
compensation equivalent to sixty per centum of his average weekly wage but not
less than fourteen pesos per week, except in the case provided for in the next
following paragraph.  No compensation
shall be allowed for the first three calendar days of incapacity resulting from
an injury except the benefits provided for in the preceding section; but if the
incapacity extends beyond that period, compensation shall be allowed from the
first day of such incapacity.  Such
weekly payments shall in no case continue after the disability has ceased, nor
shall the aggregate sum paid as compensation exceed in any case six thousand
pesos.  But no award of permanent
disability shall take effect until after two weeks have elapsed from the date
of injury.

In the case of an employee whose
average weekly wages are less than fourteen pesos per week, the weekly
compensation shall be the entire amount of such average weekly wages; but if
the disability is permanent, the compensation shall be fourteen pesos in such
case.  In the event that the total
disability begins after a period of partial disability, the amount of
compensation due for the latter and for any other disability shall not exceed
the maximum amount of six thousand pesos.