FEDERICO M. FAICOL, PETITIONER, VS. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION AND THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES (NATIONAL IRRIGATION ADMINISTRATION), RESPONDENTS.

This is a petition for review on certiorari of the
decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission rendered on January 30, 1976 affirming the order
issued on October 1, 1975
by Regional Office No. 4, Workmen’s Compensation Section, Department of Labor, Manila, which dismissed
petitioner’s claim for compensation benefits under the Workmen’s Compensation
Act, as amended.

Petitioner was an employee of the government having continuously
served therein in various positions for 39 years prior to his retirement on January 12, 1974 at the age of
sixty-three (63) years by reason of his disability due to hypertension with
renal complication.

Petitioner spent most of his years in the government service with
the National Irrigation Administration where he started as an instrument man
and retired as Irrigation Superintendent II. 
His duties as an engineer in said agency consisted primarily of
planning, directing and supervising the operation, maintenance, rehabilitation
and improvement of large irrigation system and other allied activities.  The nature of his work entailed travelling to different places to inspect various projects
and in the process exposed himself to the heat of the
sun, dust and bad weather.

As early as January 3, 1960, it was discovered that he was
suffering from hypertension as shown by the medical certificate issued on
November 16, 1968 by the petitioner’s personal physician, Dr. Eduardo J.
Garcia, stating that the petitioner was suffering from partial disability due
to his recurring hypertension for the last eight years and unstable blood
pressure (p. 47, rec.).  Moreover, the
Clinical History executed on March 11,
1975 by the Assistant City Health Officer, Dr. Nelson M. Quinto, reveals the fact that petitioner’s sickness was
aggravated from July 6, 1967
up to the time of his sixteenth consultation on January 12, 1975 (p. 48, rec.).  At the time of his retirement he was
suffering, not only from hypertension, but also from chronic nephritis.  His disability is partial (70%) and its
duration is for an indefinite period.

A perusal of the records of the case will show that petitioner,
prior to his retirement on January 12,
1974, applied for optional retirement under Section 6(c) of
Republic Act 4968 on September 10,
1967 at the age of 57 years on account of his hypertension but the
same was postponed because his services were still badly needed.  It was only therefore on January 12, 1974 that he finally retired under
the provision of Commonwealth Act 660, as amended, which provided for optional
retirement.

Subsequent to his retirement, petitioner prepared the necessary
application papers which he sent through the Philippine Express Messenger
Corporation (PEMESCO) on March 21, 1975 to his attorney-in-fact, Mrs. Ester Tagle as he was then residing at Tangub,
Bacolod City, in order that the same may be filed by
her with the Regional Office No. 4, Workmen’s Compensation Section, Department
of Labor, Manila, before the deadline for the filing of Workmen’s Compensation
Claims which was March 31, 1975 in accordance with Art. 281
(now Art. 292) of the Labor Code. 
Somehow, the application papers were not received by Mrs. Tagle in due time for one reason or another.  So petitioner immediately sent on March 31, 1975 the carbon originals
of his application papers in his possession direct to the Department of Labor
by registered mail.

On October 1, 1975, Regional Office No. 4, Workmen’s Compensation
Section, Department of Labor, Manila, through the assistant chief of section, Danilo C. Reynante, issued an
order dismissing petitioner’s claim for compensation for having been filed
after March 31, 1975 beyond the reglementary period
as provided for under Article 281 (now Arti­cle 292) of the Labor Code (p. 51,
rec.).

Petitioner filed on January
3, 1976 a motion for reconsideration of the order of dismissal of
the assistant chief stating among other things that his claim for compensation
was filed within the reglementary period as provided
for by law (p. 52, rec.).  On January 30, 1976, the respondent
Workmen’s Compensation Commission rendered a decision affirming the order of
dismissal of the assistant chief, stating that:

“Claimant in his letter requesting for reconsideration of the
said order, stated that he retired optionally at the age of 63.

“Having retired at that age, claimant was entitled to
retirement benefits equivalent to that of the compulsory retirement at age
65.  Hence, claimant did not suffer any
loss of earning power and consequently he is disqualified to the benefits under
the Workmen’s Compensation Act, as amended. 
Besides, claimant’s alleged illness of hypertension is not an
occupational disease, hence, it is not compensable
under the Act.  The
record, also, is devoid of any showing that he was disabled when he
retired” (p. 53, rec.).

Upon receipt of the decision of the Workmen’s Compensation
Commission on March 4, 1976,
petitioner filed a letter of appeal from the decision of the Commission with
this Court but the same was dismissed on April
5, 1976 for non-payment of docket and legal research fund fees.

Subsequently, petitioner in a letter dated November 9, 1976 sought advice from the clerk of
court in connection with his dismissed appeal (p. 18, rec.).

On November 25, 1976, the clerk of court, acting upon instruction
of the Court, advised petitioner to seek the assistance of counsel in the
preparation and filing of a petition for review on certiorari and
further informed him of the necessary fees to be paid in connection therewith
(p. 22, rec.).

On February 10, 1977,
petitioner filed his petition for review on certiorari of the decision
of the Commission.

Required to comment on the petition, the Solicitor General,
representing the respondents, filed one on March 19, 1977 (p. 103, rec.).

On March 30, 1977,
the Court resolved to dispense with the comment of respondent Commission and
further resolved to give due course to the petition and required the parties to
submit their respective memoranda.

I

On the question as to whether the notice and claim for
compensation was filed within the reglementary
period, a perusal of the records of the case will show that indeed petitioner’s
claim was filed within the reglementary period
provided for under Article 281 (now Article 292) of the Labor Code.  This is clearly supported by the evidence
submitted by the petitioner consisting of the Registry Receipt No. 5939 which
was postmarked March 31, 1975 bearing the registered mail containing the carbon
originals of the notice of claim for compensation and other supporting
documents sent to the Workmen’s Compensation Commission, Regional Office No. 4,
Manila, upon the failure of the original copies of the application for
compensation to arrive in Manila before the deadline (p. 41, rec.).  This is further substantiated by the
certification of the postmaster of Bacolod City that
“registered letter No. 5939 posted at this office on March 31, 1975, sent
by Mr. Federico M. Faicol and addressed to the
Regional Administrator, Department of Labor, Manila, was dispatched to Manila
on March 31, 1975, under Bill No. 150, page 1, Column 5″ (p. 157, rec.).

Therefore, although the notice of claim was actually received by
the Regional Office No. 4, Workmen’s Compensation Section, Department of Labor,
Manila, only on April 8, 1975, the same is deemed filed on March 31, 1975 (Sec.
1, Rule 13, New Rules of Court; Mintu vs. CA, 53 SCRA
114 [1973]).  In Cañete vs. Insular Co. Inc. [61 Phil. 592],
this Court ruled that:

“One of the rules of this court is that the date of the
mailing of motions, pleadings, or any other papers, as shown by the post-office
registry receipt, shall be considered as the date of their filing in this
court.  x x x“

Assuming arguendo that the claim
was filed beyond the reglementary period as provided
by Article 281 (Article 292) of the Labor Code, still the respondent employer
failed to controvert the claim for compensation of the petitioner in accordance
with Section 44 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, as amended, which provides
that in case the employer decided to controvert the right to compensation, he
shall either within 14 days following the date of disability or within 10 days
following the employer’s knowledge thereof, file a notice with the Commission.
It is evident that petitioner’s notice of injury and claim was filed on February 12, 1975; while the
employer’s report of accident or sickness containing its controversion
was submitted only on March 5, 1975
(pp. 42-43, rec.), about 21 days later, way beyond the
14-day or 10-day period for controversion.  WE have already ruled that “the failure
of the employer to controvert the claim within the prescribed period of
fourteen (14) days from the date of the disability or within ten (10) days
after knowledge of such disability amounts to a waiver of the right to
controvert and a renunciation of all defenses, like the defense that the claim
is not compensable” [Simeon A. Cañonero
vs. WCC, L-43880, Feb. 28, 1978; Romero vs. WCC, 77 SCRA 486-487 (1977); DBP
vs. WCC, 49 SCRA 365 (1973); MRR vs. WCC, 20 SCRA 982-983 (1976)].

The National Irrigation Administration knew as early as September 10, 1967 when petitioner
applied for optional retirement and again on January 12, 1974 when petitioner actually retired that
petitioner was suffering from hypertension and chronic nephritis.  But the National Irrigation Administration
failed to controvert that petitioner’s illness was not service-connected.

This is further strengthened by the fact that when the petitioner
first suffered an attack of hypertension on January 3, 1960, the respondent employer failed to submit
the Employer’s Report of Accident or Sickness in accordance with Section 37 of
the Workmen’s Compensation Act after it was notified in writing by the
petitioner (p. 42, rec.).  OUR ruling in the case of Vda. de Calado vs. Workmen’s
Compensation Commission (38 SCRA 567 [1971]) is to the effect
that:  “Employer should report any
compensable injury or death suffered by employees or workers to the Workmen’s
Compensation Commission.”

II

The ruling of the respondent Commission that the petitioner
having retired at the age of 63 years (optional retirement), did not suffer any
disability nor loss of earning power and therefore is not entitled to the
benefits under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, is erroneous; because having
availed of the optional retirement under C.A. 660, as amended, the fact of his
disability is already implied for under Memorandum Circular No. 133, issued on
October 19, 1967 by the Office of the President, optional retirement may be
allowed before reaching the compulsory age of retirement only upon proof that
the employee is already physically incapacitated to render sound and efficient
service.  Therefore, the question as to
petitioner’s disability is thus foreclosed with the approval of his optional
retirement under C.A. 660 and petitioner is entitled to the disability benefits
of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, as amended (Simeon A. Cañonero
vs. WCC, supra, citing Romero vs. WCC, supra; Despe
vs. WCC, 75 SCRA 350, 354, [1977]).

III

It is evident from the records of the case that the illness of
the petitioner arose out, and was aggravated in the course, of his employment
with the respondent employer.  This is
attested to by the personal physician of the petitioner who certified that
since the time the hypertension began in 1960 up to 1968 the petitioner was
suffering from partial disability due to his recurring hypertension.  Moreover, the assistant city Health Officer
of Bacolod City
also indicated in the clinical history of the petitioner that from 1967 up to
the time of retirement petitioner’s sickness was so aggravated that he was
suffering from hypertension with kidney complication.  Obviously, during those years the petitioner
was still employed with the respondent employer and consequently, there arises
in favor of the petitioner the rebuttable presumption
of compensability of the illness because it supervened in the course of his
employment (Simeon A. Cañonero vs. WCC, supra; Leopoldo Lorenzo vs. WCC, L-42631, Jan. 31, 1978; Romero
vs. WCC, supra).

The respondent employer failed to present any substantial
evidence showing lack of connection between the petitioner’s illness and his
employment.  There­fore, the illness
remains compensable.

Even when the cause of the ailment is unknown, as long as it
occurs during employment, the presumption of compensability subsists.

WHEREFORE, THE DECISION DATED JANUARY 30, 1976 OF THE RESPONDENT WORKMEN’S
COMPENSATION COMMISSION IS HEREBY SET ASIDE AND RESPONDENT NATIONAL IRRIGATION
ADMINISTRATION IS HEREBY ORDERED

(1) TO PAY PETITIONER SIX THOUSAND [P6,000.00]
PESOS AS COMPENSATION BENEFITS;

(2) TO REIMBURSE PETITIONER HIS EXPENSES FOR MEDICAL AND HOSPITAL
SERVICES, DULY SUPPORTED BY PROPER RECEIPTS;

(3) TO PAY PETITIONER’S COUNSEL THE SUM OF SIX HUNDRED [P600.00]
PESOS AS ATTORNEY’S FEES; AND

(4) TO PAY THE SUM OF SIXTY-ONE [P61.00] PESOS AS ADMINISTRATIVE
FEES.

SO ORDERED.

Fernandez, Guerrero, De Castro, and
Melencio-Herrera, JJ., concur.

Teehankee, J., (Chairman), took no part.