CARLOS MESINA, PETITIONER, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHI­LIPPINES (BUREAU OF CUSTOMS, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE), THE WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COM­MISSION (DEFUNCT), ASSOCIATE COMMISSIONER …

This is a petition to review the decision of the Workmen’s
Compensation Commission in RO4-WC Case No. 157456 entitled “Carlos Mesina, Claimant, versus, Republic of the Philippines
(Bureau of Customs), Respondent” reversing the decision of the Acting
Referee of Regional Office No. 4 of the Department of Labor at Manila and
dismissing the case.^[1]

On August 8, 1974, Carlos Mesina filed
a Notice of Injury or Sickness and Claim for Compensation with Regional Office
No. 4 of the Department of Labor at Manila seeking to recover from the Republic
of the Philippines (Bureau of Customs, Department of Finance), disability
compensation benefits for having contracted in the course of his employment
pulmonary tuberculosis, peptic ulcer, Rheumatoid Arthritis and coronary insufficiency
which ailments were allegedly caused by or ag­gravated by his employment.

The Office of the Solicitor General acknowledged receipt of
copies of the notice and claim on August
21, 1974.  A copy of said
notice and claim was sent to the Commissioner of Customs.  However, no answer was filed by the
respondent.  Nevertheless, the case was
set for hearing on the merits and the respondent was notified thereof.^[2]

At the hearing, the claimant presented evidence to support his
claim.  The respondent, Bureau of
Customs, did not adduce any evidence to rebut the evidence of the claimant.

The Acting Referee rendered his decision dated August 8, 1975 the dispositive
part of which reads:

“WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is rendered in favor
of the claimant and ordering the Bureau of Customs:

1)      
To pay the claimant, Carlos Mesina,
thru this Office, the sum of SIX THOUSAND (P6,000.00) Pesos, as disability
compensation benefits under Sections 14 and 18 of the Act; and the additional
sum of P2,470.60 as re­imbursement of medical expenses under Section 13 of the
Act;

2)      
To pay Atty. Ricardo M. Perez the sum of P300.00
as Attorney’s fees; and

3)      
To pay this Office the sum of P61.00 as
administrative and decision fees pursuant to Section 55 of the Act.”^[3]

The facts, as found, by the Acting Referee are:

“That the claimant, Carlos Mesina,
was employed as Clerk II in the Bureau of Customs.  He first entered the service of the
respondent in July, 1948.  He was
required to undergo the routine pre-employment medical examinations and was
found physically fit for work.  As Clerk
II his duties included among others the receiving and filing of Memorandum
Orders, administrative Orders, letters, documents of
importation called Entry Papers and have them distributed to Assessors so as
not to hamper the release of goods or cargoes. 
He worked five (5) days a week from 8:00
A.M. to 5:00 P.M..  His last monthly
salary was P400.00.  On October 2, 1972 the claimant stopped
working due to physical disability on account of his ailments which later were
diag­nosed as PTB, minimal, probably active, peptic
ulcer, Rheumatoid arthritis and coronary insufficiency.

The claimant testified that he started to feel the symptoms of his
ailments of PTB as early as 1965.  He had himself x-rayed at the San Lazaro Hospital.  The
second x-ray examination was in 1970 and was found positive for PTB.  He was
prescribed medicines like Enervon C and was administered
streptomycin injections.  This was
followed later by attacks of Coronary Insufficiency, Rheumatoid Arthritis and
Peptic Ulcer.  For his medical treatment
claimant has spent over three thousand pesos.

On July 28, 1975
claimant was subjected to x-ray and medical examinations at the National
Tuberculosis Center Clinic and was found still positive of PTB,
minimal, probably inactive.  The
Compensation Rating Medical Officer rated claimant’s disability at 12% of
non-scheduled disability, on the basis of the chest x-ray findings at the
National Tuberculosis Center Clinic.

Of his claim for medical expenses only the sum of P2,470.60 is supported by receipts supported by the statement
of Dr. Francisco S. Cunanan, Jr.

Up to now the claimant is still out of work and has not been
engaged in any gainful occupation.”^[4]

The respondent, Republic of the Philippines
(Bureau of Customs, Department of Finance), appealed to the Work­men’s
Compensation Commission which reversed the decision of the Acting Referee and
dismissed the case.

The petitioner assigns errors allegedly committed by the
Workmen’s Compensation Commission:

” I

THAT THE HONORABLE RESPONDENT COMMISSIONERS OF THE WORKMEN’S
COMPENSATION COMMISSION (DEFUNCT) GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT HAVING TAKEN INTO
CONSIDERATION THE FACT THAT THE SOLICITOR GENERAL’S OFFICE, AS COUNSEL FOR THE
RESPONDENT BUREAU OF CUSTOMS, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, HAD NOT IN­DICATED IN THE
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION THE TIMELINESS OF THE FILING OF ITS SAID MOTION
GIVING THE IMPRESSION THAT THE SAID MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (ANNEXES C and
C-1) WAS FILED OUT OF TIME AND THUS THE DECISION OF THE RE­GIONAL REFEREE
(ANNEXES B, B-1, B-2 and B-3) HAD ALREADY BECOME FINAL AND EXECUTORY
AND BEYOND THE AUTHORITY OF THE RESPONDENT COMMISSIONERS TO REVIEW OR DIS­TURB

” II

THAT GRANTING ARGUENDO THAT THE HONORABLE
COMMISSIONERS MAY STILL POSSESS JURISDICTION TO REVIEW THE REFEREE’S DECISION
(ANNEXES B THRU B-3) STILL THE HONORABLE COMMISSIONERS SERIOUSLY ERRED IN NOT
HAVING TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION THE FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF ITS
REGIONAL COMPENSATION RATING MEDICAL OFFICER WHO HAS PERSONAL VIEW OF THE
CONDITIONS OF HEREIN PETITIONER WHEN HE WAS EXAMINED AND WHO HAD EVALUATED
CORRECTLY HIS DISABILITY FOR LABOR

” III

THAT THE HONORABLE RESPONDENT COMMISSIONERS ALSO GRAVELY ERRED IN
NOT HAVING TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION THE MEDICAL EVIDENCES SUBMITTED BY HEREIN
PETITIONER IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM FOR DISABILITY COMPENSATION BENEFITS
CONSIDERING THAT THE SAID DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WAS NOT REBUTTED NOR OVERTHROWN
BY RESPONDENT BUREAU OF CUSTOMS OF ITS COUNSEL OF RECORD WITH OTHER COMPETENT,
MATERIAL, RELEVANT EVIDENCE

” IV

THAT THE HONORABLE RESPONDENT COMMISSIONERS
FINALLY ERRED IN NOT APPLYING SECTION 45 OF ACT NO. 3428, AS AMENDED
WHEN THE RECORDS OF THIS CASE SHOW CLEARLY THAT THE APPLICABI­LITY OF THE AFORECITED PROVISION OF THE ACT IS IMPERATIVE IN THE CIR­CUMSTANCES”^[5]

The Workmen’s Compensation Commission reversed the decision of
the Acting Referee because:

“The decision under review must be reversed for the following
reasons, to wit:  (1) Claimant miserably
failed to prove by substantial evidence that he suffered disability for labor
due to his alleged ailments which started sometime in 1965 and after about
seven (7) years had elapsed stopped working only on October 6, 1972 and since
then no showing that he returned to work; (2) Exhibit ‘A’, Physician’s report
of sickness dated only on June 19, 1975, submitted and signed by Dr. Francisco
S. Cunanan of Manila, claimant’s at­tending
physician, clearly shows that Dr. Cunanan first
treated him for PTB, chronic, minimal, active
in May 1970 and his second treatment took place on June 11, 1975, which even a
layman in his right senses would not dare to admit; (3) if it were true that he
suffered several illnesses which caused disability for labor, claimant failed
to present sick leave of absences to back-up his claim and not even an X-ray
examination report is likewise presented and offered in evidence; (4) it is
safe to infer that his disability for labor only commenced when he stopped
working on October 6, 1972 when he was over 56 years; and (5) his other alleged
ailments of peptic ulcer, rheumatoid arthritis and coronary insufficiency are
not disabling ailments unless they become serious.”^[6]

The petition for review is meritorious.  It is not necessary to discuss the technical
question of whether or not the Workmen’s Compensation Commission acquired
jurisdiction over the appeal of the respondent Republic of the Philippines
(Bureau of Customs) from the decision of the Acting Referee.

The undisputed fact is that the illnesses of the petitioner
supervened during his employment with the respondent, Republic of the Philippines
(Bureau of Customs).  Hence, there is a
disputable presumption that the claim is compensable.^[7]
The claimant is relieved of the duty to prove causation as it is then legally
presumed that the illness arose out of the employment.  To the employer is shifted the burden of
proof to establish that the illness is non-compensable.^[8]

There is no showing that the respondent, Republic of the Philippines
(Bureau of Customs), controverted the claim.  The Acting Referee that conducted the
hearings stated in his decision that “Until this time, however, no answer
has been filed by the respondent.”^[9]
In view thereof, said respondent is deemed to have renounced all
non-jurisdictional defenses.^[10]

The claimant, petitioner herein, did not rely on the disputable
presumption alone.  He presented evidence
that he acquired his illnesses as a result of the nature of his employment in
the Bureau of Customs.  The respon­dent,
Republic of the Philippines
(Bureau of Customs), did not rebut the disputable presumption and the evidence
adduced by the petitioner.

The Acting Referee awarded to the claimant, petitioner herein,
the following:

“Under Section 14 of the Act, claimant shall be entitled to
disability compensation benefits equivalent to 60% of his average weekly wage
which was P92.30 (P400.00 x 12 divided by 52 weeks).  Sixty (60%) per cent of P92.30 is P55.38 and
for 151 weeks of temporary total disability from October 2, 1972 to August
6, 1975 claimant shall be entitled to the sum of P8,362.38;

“Under Section 18 of the Act, claimant’s disability was
evaluated at 12% of non-scheduled disability or equivalent to 24.96 weeks.  Fifty (50%) per cent of P92.30 is P46.15 and
for 24.96 weeks claimant shall be entitled to the sum of P1,151.80;

“Under Sections 14 and 18 of the Act, claimant shall be
entitled to the aggregate sum of P9,514.18 but this
amount is reduced to P6,000.00, the maximum fixed by the Act;

“Under Section 13 of the Act, claimant shall be entitled to
reimbursement of medical expenses.  But
of the amount of P3,000.00 prayed for we are granting
only the amount of P2,470.60, the same being the only amount supported by
official receipts and other documents.

“Atty. Ricardo M. Perez, claim­ant’s counsel, shall be
entitled to attorney’s fees of P300.00 pursuant to Section 31 of the Act.”^[11]

The foregoing computation is correct
except that the attor­ney’s fees should be 10% of the amount awarded as
disability compensation.

WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby set aside
and the respondent, Republic of the Philippines
(Bureau of Customs, Department of Finance), is ordered:

1) To pay the petitioner,
Carlos Mesina, the sum of Six Thousand Pesos (P6,000.00) as disability compensation benefits;

2) To pay the petitioner the
additional sum of Two Thousand Four Hundred Seventy Pesos and 60/100 (P2,470.60) as reimbursement for medical expenses if supported
by proper receipts;

3) To pay the petitioner the
sum of Six Hundred Pesos (P600.00) 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), Guerrero, De
Castro, and Melencio-Herrera,
JJ.,
concur.

Makasiar, J., concurs in a separate opinion.

^[1]
Annex “E”, Rollo, pp. 24-26.

^[2]
Annex “B”, Rollo, p. 17.

^[3]
Annex “B-3”, Rollo, p. 20.

^[4]
Annex “B”, Rollo, pp. 17-18.

^[5]
Petition, Rollo, p. 2.

^[6]
Annex “E-1”, Rollo, p. 25.

^[7] Section 44, Workmen’s Compensation Act; Justiniano
vs. Workmen’s Compensation Commission, 18 SCRA
677.

^[8] Balanga vs. Workmen’s
Compensation Commission, et al., 83 SCRA 721.

^[9]
Annex “B”, Rollo, p. 17.

^[10] Lominog Dinaro vs. Workmen’s Compensation Commission, et
al., 70 SCRA 292.

^[11] Rollo, p. 20.

Normal
150
Clean
Clean

6 pt
6 pt
0
3

MicrosoftInternetExplorer4

/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:”Table Normal”;
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:””;
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:”Times New Roman”;}