ANTONIO DELA PEÑA, PETITIONER, VS. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION AND PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE COMPANY, RESPONDENTS.

This is a petition for review of the decision dated January 19,
1976 of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission in RO4-WC Case No. 165067
entitled “Antonio dela Peña,
Claimant, versus, Philippine Long Distance Telephone Co., Respondent”
affirming the order of the Acting Referee of Regional Office No. 4 of the
Department of Labor in Manila, dismissing the claim for disability benefits.^[1]

On March 21, 1975,
Antonio dela Peña filed a
compensation claim with the Workmen’s Compensation Section, Regional Office No.
4, for reimbursement of medical expenses and recovery of disability benefits
against the Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company.  After the claimant had adduced his evidence,
he received on October 23, 1975 at about 11:00 o’clock in the morning a telegram
from Acting Referee Danilo Bolos asking him to report
to the Medical Rating Officer of the regional office for the purpose of
determining the extent of his disability; that allegedly because the claimant
was still bedridden at that time, he was not able to report for physical
examination; that, however, the claimant reported on the following day, October
24, 1975 for the physical examination but he was informed by Acting Referee Bolos that his case would be dismissed for
lack of interest and that his only recourse would be to file a motion for
reconsideration; that on November 14, 1975, the claimant filed with the
regional office his motion for reconsideration dated November 7, 1975; that
claimant actually received a copy of the order of dismissal dated October 27,
1975 of Acting Referee Bolos only on December 16, 1975; and that on January 19,
1975, the Workmen’s Compensation Commission rendered its decision affirming the
order of dismissal.^[2]

The Workmen’s
Compensation Commission found that the claimant, now petitioner, was formerly
employed with the Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company from February 28,
1959 starting as laborer, then as lineman in 1961, and lastly as line foreman
on May 1, 1970, the last position he held at the time he ceased employment on
January 31, 1975; that sometime on August 31, 1961 while allegedly installing
telephone cables, the petitioner sustained injuries when he fell from a
telephone post of the Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company; and that he
was confined at the Waterous Hospital for
“contusion, severe, lumbo-sacral region,
right” under the medical care of Dr. Benito Dungo.3

The record shows that the
petitioner claimed for disability compensation due to an illness diagnosed as
“Potts Disease 4th and 3rd LV (TB of Spine) and old compression fracture,
mild, 11th Dorsal Vertebra” for which he was treated on February 18, 1975
by Dr. Eugenio Inocentes,
Jr..

The private respondent,
Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company, claims that the petitioner resigned
on January 31, 1975.  However, the petitioner
contends that it was only on May 21, 1975 when he resigned due to his illness
of “Potts Disease 4th and 3rd LV (TB of Spine) and old compression
fracture, mild, 11th Dorsal
Vertebra”, which resignation was
imposed as a condition by the Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company for
the amicable settlement of the case he filed against it for reinstatement with
back wages.  Attached to the memorandum
for the petitioner is a xerox copy which reads:

“May 21, 1975

The Phil. Long
Distance Telephone Co.

PLDT Bldg., Ayala
Avenue

Makati,
Rizal

Sirs:

I hereby tender my voluntary resignation from the Company.  I wish to inform your goodselves
that I am presently confined in the hospital and scheduled to be operated upon
due to an accident or injuries contracted as a Line Foreman.  Thus, I request that all monetary benefits
due me be given the soonest because I need cash with which to advance my hospitalization
and other medical expenses.

Should I discover in the future that I am still entitled to more
benefits than those to be given me, I hereby reserve
my right to collect them in due course.

Thank you.

Very truly yours,

(SGD) ANTONIO DELA PEÑA

Witness:

(SGD) ROGELIO M. DIZON

Recd:

(SGD) ILLEGIBLE

5/22″4

The Workmen’s Compensation Commission affirmed the order of the
Acting Referee dismissing the claim on the finding that the illness for which
the petitioner is claiming disability benefits took place after his resignation
on January 31, 1975.

Apart from the fact that there is a dispute as to when and how
the petitioner resigned from the Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company,
the preponderance of the evidence is that the disease for which the petitioner
was treated February 17, 1975 was the direct effect of the injuries he
sustained on August 31, 1961 when he fell from a PLDT post in the course of his
employment with the private respondent. 
Dr. Inocentes declared that TB of the spine is
a progressive disease and that the old compression fracture could have been
caused by the fall on August 31, 1961.5 Indeed, the “old compression fracture”
could not have suddenly developed only on February 17, 1975.

It is clear, therefore, that the illness of the claimant
supervened during his employment with the Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company.

Hence, there is a disputable presumption that the claim is
compensable.6 The burden of proof is shifted
to the employer, Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company, to prove that the
claim is not compensable.7 Said
private respondent has failed to overcome the presumption of compensability and
the evidence of the petitioner that his illness was caused and aggravated by
his work.

Considering the nature of TB of the spine, the petitioner is
entitled to maximum disability benefits of P6,000.00.  He is also entitled to be reimbursed of
medical expenses if established by proper receipts.

WHEREFORE, the decision of the Workmen’s Compensation
Commission sought to be reviewed is hereby set aside and the Philippine Long
Distance Telephone Company is ordered:

1)     
To pay the petitioner the sum of Six Thousand
Pesos (P6,000.00) for disability benefits;

2)     
To reimburse the petitioner of medical expenses
supported by proper receipts;

3)     
To pay the petitioner the amount of Six Hundred
Pesos (P600.00) as attorney’s fees; and

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

SO ORDERED.

Teehankee, (Chairman), Makasiar, Guerrero, De Castro, and Melencio-Herrera, JJ., concur.

^[1]
Annex “A”, Rollo, pp. 21-24.

^[2]
Petition for Review, Rollo, pp. 12-14.

4 Rollo, p. 58.

5 Rollo,
pp. 52-54.

6 Section 44,
Workmen’s Compensation Act; Justiniano vs.
Workmen’s Compensation Commission, 18 SCRA 677.

7 Balanga vs. Workmen’s
Compensation Commission, et al.,
83 SCRA 721.