FRANCISCO VELOSO, PETITIONER, VS. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION AND LA ELEGANCIA JEWELRY, AND/OR ANTONIO LUI LAO, RESPONDENTS.

This is a petition for certiorari to review the decision
of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission in R04-WC Case No. 19748.

Francisco Veloso was employed in La Elegancia Jewelry as a platero
from 1961 to December 14, 1971.  During his employment he was treated for a
lung ailment, which however did not prevent him from
continuing with his regular work.  On September 9, 1971, he had his chest
X-Ray at the Philippine Tuberculosis Society, Inc., whose findings is:

“Minimal infiltration, predominantly fibrotic, more on the left.”

On December 14, 1971,
he signed a “voluntary resignation paper” which was duly accepted by
his employer effective on said date.  On September 26, 1972, he filed a notice
of injury or sickness and claim for compensation before the regional office of
the Department of Labor, Manila.

The Regional Office No. 4 found that the illness of the claimant
was directly caused or aggravated by the
nature of his work with the respondent. 
But it denied the claim for compensation because “his claim for
disability for labor was filed during the period after the cessation of their
employer-employee relation.”

In affirming the decision of the Regional Office, the Workmen’s
Compensation Commission stated that “this Commission cannot agree that
claimant’s act of resig­nation was brought about by his illness, for his chest
x-ray which was that taken on September 9, 1971 or only about three (3) months
before resignation in December, 1971, showed that his PTB was already
predominantly fibrotic, indicating, more or less, the
presence of a healed PTB lesion.  Such a finding likewise (belies) claimant’s allegation of blood vomiting
sometime in that month of September, 1971.  It is an established fact in this case that
claimant had never been on sick leave on account of his above-named sickness
during his employment with the respondent.” The Commission further stated
that claimant’s resignation was voluntary in nature; consequently, even
granting that he was really sick of P.T.B., he can no longer claim for
disability benefit.

The decision must be reversed.

The findings of the Acting Referee of Regional Office No. 4 of the Department of Labor that the illness of the claimant
was directly caused or aggravated by the nature of his work with respondent
undoubtedly makes the claim compensable under the Act.  All that Section 2 of the Workmen’s
Compensation Act requires as ground for
compensation, among others, is that the “employee x x x contracts tuberculosis or
other illness directly caused by such employment; or either aggravated by or
the result of the nature of such employment” (Tecla
Magpantay, etc., et al. vs. WCC, et al., L-43457,
Oct. 26, 1976).

That the claim was filed after claimant was separated from the
service is not a fatal defect which will deprive the Workmen’s Compensation
Commission of its jurisdiction to entertain the claim legally due to the
claimant.  The compensation under the
Workmen’s Compensation Act as amended is a liability vested by statute which
prescribes in 10 years pursuant to Article 1144 (2) of the Civil Code.  The rule is especially true when there is no
showing that the employer sustained damage as a result of the delayed filing of
the claim (Domingo Vallo vs. WCC, et al., L-41816,
October 19, 1976).

WE agree with the claimant that he was asked to resign because he
was already too weak to work.  For, were
it not for that reason, complainant would not have resigned.  After claimant had resigned from the service,
he never engaged in any other employment, evidencing that he can no longer be
gainfully employed.

WHEREFORE, THE DECISION OF RESPONDENT WORKMEN’S
COMPENSATION COMMISSION IS HEREBY REVERSED AND SET ASIDE AND RESPONDENT LA
ELEGANCIA JEWELRY IS HEREBY ORDERED TO PAY:

1. CLAIMANT FRANCISCO VELOSO:

A)   
THE SUM OF SIX THOUSAND
(P6,000.00) PESOS AS LIABILITY COMPENSATION; AND

B)   
THE AMOUNT REPRESENTING MEDICAL
AND HOSPITAL EXPENSES EVIDENCED BY PROPER RECEIPTS;

2.  COUNSEL FOR CLAIMANT, ATTORNEY’S FEES
EQUIVALENT TO TEN PERCENT (10%) OF
THE RECOVERABLE AMOUNT; AND

3.  SIXTY-ONE (P61.00) PESOS
AS ADMINISTRATIVE FEE.

WITH COSTS AGAINST PRIVATE RESPONDENT.

SO ORDERED.

Teehankee, (Chairman), Muñoz Palma, Martin, Fernandez, and Guerrero, JJ., concur.