CENTRAL AZUCARERA DON PEDRO, PETITIONER, VS. THE WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION AND PEDRO VILLANUEVA, RESPONDENTS.

Certiorari to review an award of compensation to appellee Pedro Villanueva decreed by the Workmen’s
Compensation Commission in its Case No. RO5-2334.

The following facts, declared in the decision appealed from, are
not substantially controverted:

“The records of the case disclose that claimant started
working with the respondent company as a “palero”
in 1933, after undergoing a pre-employment physical and medical examination. In
1939 he was made a “fogonero” and continued
as such until 1946 when he was promoted to “cabo
palero” the position he held until July 28, 1961 when he stopped working
because of fever, chest and back pains body weaken­ing and coughing.  Claimant alleged that he begun to have said
symptoms as early as 1943 and that sometime in 1959, he spat blood while
working.  The periodic medical, as well
as the X-ray examination which started in 1952, made on the claimant during the
succeeding years of his employment showed, however, that he was in good health
and free from any lung ailment.  Claimant
was confined at the respondent’s hospital on August 10, 1961 until September 2, 1961, and on November 6, 1961 he was retired from the service, but
respondent’s medical treatment of claimant continued up to November 29, 1961.  Upon X-ray examination of the claimant by the
company phy­sician on September 25,
1961, claimant was found af­flicted with minimal pulmonary
tuberculosis.  Said findings was later
confirmed when claimant had himself X-rayed again at the Batangas Provincial
Chest Center
on December 1, 1961.  He had himself treated by Dr. Numeriano G. Presto of Mangaldan,
Pangasinan, and al legedly
spent P512.00.

Claimant’s work as a “palero”
during the milling season was to clean the parrilla
and scrape the hardened ashes on the walls of the fogon;
as fogonero, he supervised the dropping of the baggasse inside the fogon by
staying on top of the fogon assigned to him; and as cabo palero, he supervised the 7 men tending the 7 furnaces, as well as the
supply of water to the calderas so as to maintain the required water
level.  Claimant worked weekly in each of
the three shifts (8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. ; 4: 00 p.m. to 12:00 midnight; 12:00
midnight to 8:00 a.m.), During off-milling seasons, his work was mainly
cleaning the fogon, parts of the blower, repainting,
and cleaning the pipe­lines inside the tambor,
working every other week.”

The petitioner Central assails the award primarily on the ground
that that preponderant evidence is that the ailment was not contracted as a
result of the nature of claimant’s work, and that the claim was presented
beyond the period fixed by Section 24 of the Compensation Act.

On the first ground, it must be recalled that by statute there is
established a presumption that the workman’s claim is compensable (Section 44,
No. 1, Act 3428), and that presumption places upon the employer the burden of
proving that the employee’s injury or illness was not and could not be caused
or ag­gravated by the nature of his work (Naira vs. WCC, L-18066, October 30,
National Development Co., vs. Ayson and WCC, May
24,1967, 20 S.C.R.A. 192, and cases collated in the appended annotation, at
pages 196-197; ITEMCCI vs. Florzo, 17 S. C. R. A.
1104).

The only evidence submitted by the employer to rebut the
statutory pre­sumption lies in the testimony of claimant that as “cabo palero” his principal
duty was to supervise seven furnaces of the “calderas” ‘department;
that of Dr. Gerardo Manes, to the effect that there was enough ventilation and
“fair conditions of work” in the place where claimant labored; and of
Dr. Angelina Gutierrez that without tubercle bacilli in his body, claimant
“will not get pulmonary tuberculosis even with the conditions of labor
present” (Appellant’s Brief, pages 16-21).

All this evidence fails to overcome the presumption, considering
the undisputed facts found by the Commission, that claimant repeatedly had to
perform night work, which, in itself, y debilitating
the body’s resistance (V. Manila Railroad Co. vs. C. I. R., G. R. No. L-3862,
August 28, 1951), facilitates the activation of dormant tuberculosis; and the
nature of his work scraping and cleaning the furnaces, that compelled the
laborer to breath hot and dust laden air, with unfavorable effects on his
respiratory organs.  Admitting that the
work itself could not introduce the bacilli into the laborer’s body, still this
activation from a dormant state was favored by the conditions of work, and thus
gives rise to a compensable injury that entitles the workman to compensation (5
Schneider, Workmen’s Compensation Law, page 501).

With regard to the claim that the delay in filing the claim for compensation
should be considered fatal to its success, appellant corporation seems to have
taken no notice of the fact that the original ruling to that effect has
suffered a gradual evolution, and that the trend of the more recent decisions
of this Court has been to consider the delay a non-jurisdictional defect,
unless it is shown that the employer has been prejudiced thereby (See Century
Ins. Co. vs. Fuentes, L-16039, August 31, 1961; NDC vs. WCC, L-1492C, April 20,
1964; and Manila ‘Railroad vs. Manalang; November 29,
1965).  Trend conforms to the need of
protecting the workman whose inferiority vis-a-vis
the employer has always been marked by disadvantage (Civil Code of Philippines,
Article 24).

“ART. 24. 
In all contractual, property or other relations, when one of the
parties is at a disadvantage on account of his moral dependence, ignorance, in­digence,
mental weakness, tender age or other handicap, the courts must be vigilant for
his protection.”

In view of the conclusions thus reached, it becomes unnecessary
to inquire whether the employer has forfeited his right to controvert the claim
of the laborer, since even without such forfeiture, there is substantial legal
and factual support for the Commission’s award.

WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby
affirmed.  Costs
against appellant Central Azucarera Don Pedro.

Concepcion, C.J., Dizon,
Makalintal, Zaldivar,
Sanchez, Angeles, and Fernando, JJ., concur.

Ruiz Castro, J., did not take
part.