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

Dela Peña versus Workmen's Compensation Commission

The Case

This is a petition for review brought by Antonio dela Peña against the Workmen's Compensation Commission and the Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company. Dela Peña asks the Supreme Court to reverse the Commission's affirmance of a referee's order dismissing his claim for disability benefits and reimbursement of medical expenses. The case matters because it is a clean illustration of the presumption of compensability under the Workmen's Compensation Act: once the illness supervenes during employment, the burden shifts to the employer, and an employer who offers no evidence beyond a bare denial loses.

Procedural History

Dela Peña filed his compensation claim with the Workmen's Compensation Section of Regional Office Number Four of the Department of Labor in Manila. After he had presented his evidence, the Acting Referee issued an order dated October 27, 1975 dismissing the claim. Dela Peña moved for reconsideration. The Workmen's Compensation Commission then rendered a decision dated January 19, 1976 affirming the dismissal, on the finding that the illness for which he claimed took place after his resignation on January 31, 1975. Dela Peña elevated the matter to the Supreme Court by petition for review, and the Court set aside the Commission's decision.

Facts

Antonio dela Peña was employed by the Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company from February 28, 1959, starting as a laborer, becoming a lineman in 1961, and finally a line foreman on May 1, 1970. On August 31, 1961, while allegedly installing telephone cables, he fell from a telephone post and sustained injuries. He was confined at the Waterous Hospital for a severe contusion of the lumbo-sacral region, right, under the care of Dr. Benito Dungo.

Years later, on February 18, 1975, he was treated by Dr. Eugenio Inocentes, Junior, for an illness diagnosed as Potts Disease of the fourth and third lumbar vertebrae, that is, tuberculosis of the spine, and an old compression fracture, mild, of the eleventh dorsal vertebra. The company claimed he resigned on January 31, 1975. Dela Peña insisted he resigned only on May 21, 1975, and that the resignation was imposed as a condition for the amicable settlement of his earlier case for reinstatement with back wages. His resignation letter of that date reserved his right to collect any further benefits to which he might later be found entitled.

On March 21, 1975, he filed his compensation claim. After presenting his evidence, he received a telegram from the Acting Referee directing him to report to the Medical Rating Officer. He was then bedridden and could not report that day; he appeared the following day, October 24, 1975, but was told his case would be dismissed for lack of interest. He actually received the dismissal order only on December 16, 1975.

Issues

• Whether or not the illness of tuberculosis of the spine and old compression fracture supervened during the claimant's employment with the Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company.
• Whether or not the claim is compensable under the presumption of compensability of the Workmen's Compensation Act, and whether the employer overcame that presumption.
• Whether or not the claimant is entitled to maximum disability benefits and reimbursement of medical expenses.

Applicable Provisions

Section 44 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, as cited in the decision, provides:

Section 44. Presumption. In any proceeding for the enforcement of the provisions of this Act, it shall be presumed in the absence of substantial evidence to the contrary that the claim comes within the provisions of this Act.

This is the disputable presumption of compensability that shifts the burden of proof to the employer once the illness is shown to have supervened during employment.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the preponderance of evidence showed the disease for which the petitioner was treated in February 1975 was the direct effect of the injuries he sustained on August 31, 1961, when he fell from a company post in the course of his employment. Dr. Inocentes testified that tuberculosis of the spine is a progressive disease and that the old compression fracture could have been caused by that fall. The Court reasoned that the old compression fracture could not have suddenly developed only on February 17, 1975. It concluded that the illness clearly supervened during his employment.

On the second issue, the Court applied the statutory presumption. Because the illness supervened during employment, there arose a disputable presumption that the claim is compensable, and the burden of proof shifted to the employer to prove that the claim is not compensable. The company failed to overcome the presumption and the petitioner's evidence that his illness was caused and aggravated by his work.

On the third issue, the Court held that, considering the nature of tuberculosis of the spine, the petitioner is entitled to maximum disability benefits of six thousand pesos, and to reimbursement of medical expenses if established by proper receipts.

Doctrine

Three rules a Bar candidate should retain. First, when an illness supervenes during employment, Section 44 of the Workmen's Compensation Act raises a disputable presumption of compensability, and the burden of proof shifts to the employer to prove the claim is not compensable. Second, an employer who presents no substantial evidence to rebut that presumption fails to overcome it, and the claim must be granted. Third, where the evidence, including medical testimony, shows that a progressive disease is the direct effect of a work-related injury, the illness is compensable even if diagnosed years after the accident.

Disposition

The Court set aside the decision of the Workmen's Compensation Commission and ordered the Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company to pay the petitioner six thousand pesos in disability benefits, to reimburse medical expenses supported by proper receipts, to pay six hundred pesos as attorney's fees, and to pay sixty-one pesos as administrative fee.

Remember This

Memorize this line: once the illness supervenes during employment, the law presumes the claim compensable, and the burden shifts to the employer. Examiners use this case to test the presumption of compensability under the Workmen's Compensation Act and the shifting of the burden of proof.