JESUS FERNANDEZ, PETITIONER, VS. ANSCOR CONTAINER CORPORATION AND THE WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, RESPONDENTS.

The instant petition seeks to review the decision of the
Workmen’s Compensation Commission which denied the claim for disability
benefits earlier granted by the Workmen’s Compensation Section, Manila.

Petitioner Jesus Fernandez was an employee of respondent Anscor
Container Corporation for over twenty three (23) years starting from September
22, 1952. He served as maintenance
mechanic for many years and was assigned to Quality Control at the
corporation’s maintenance department until June 13, 1974 when he took his sick
leave. His sick leave was prompted by a
medical examination on June 13, 1974 conducted by the company physician, Dr.
Herminio Ilagan who found him suffering from advanced Bilateral PTB. (Annex A, Petition)

On December 2, 1974, the petitioner was again examined, this time
by Dr. Alfredo P. Del Rosario, medical officer of the Armed Forces at Camp
Crame. He was diagnosed as still
suffering from “Far Advanced PTB.”

On March 4, 1975, the petitioner submitted his notice and claim
for Workmen’s Compensation Commission (WCC) compensation benefits with the
Manila Regional WCC Office No. 4.

On October 14, 1975, the Regional Office through Meliton C.
Perducho issued an AWARD as follows:

“1. To pay the claimant, thru this Office, the
sum of FIVE THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED NINE PESOS 62/100 (P5,309.62) representing
the compensation which has accrued to date and beginning October 15, 1975, a
weekly compensation of SEVENTY SIX PESOS & 15/100 (P76.15) until his
disability for labor ceases but not exceeding SIX THOUSAND PESOS (P6,000.00)
including the lump sum payment;

2. To extend or continue extending to claimant
such necessary medical services and supplies as the nature of his illness and
the process of his recovery may require and that which will promote his early
restoration to the maximum level of his physical capacity and should respondent
fail in this regard claimant may secure such medical services and supplies at
respondent’s expenses; and

3. To pay to the Workmen’s Compensation Fund,
likewise thru this Office, the sum of FIFTY FOUR PESOS (P54.00) as partial
administrative fee, pursuant to Sec. 55 of the Act, Bill No. 4211-75 is
attached.” (Rollo, p. 23)

The award was based on the following findings:

“In the claim for
compensation filed in this case, it is alleged, among other things, that the
above-named claimant in the employ of respondent as ‘Maintenance Mechanic’
contracted illness (PTB, Far Advanced) on June 13, 1974 in the course of his
employment and aggravated by the nature of such employment, disabling him for
labor since the said date. The record
shows that a copy of said claim was transmitted to respondent under covering
letter dated June 30, 1975 and the same was received on July 15, 1975, but
respondent failed to submit the required Employer’s Report of Accident or
Sickness or file its answer to the claim, Respondent having failed to dispute
the allegations of the claim and to establish its right to controvert, the
compensability of the claim is deemed admitted, respondent being considered to have waived or furnished all its defenses as are
available to it which go into the merits of the case.” (Rollo, p. 23)

Upon appeal by the respondent corporation, the WCC set aside the
Award and dismissed the case for insufficiency of evidence.

In reversing the Award, the WCC stated:

“We observe that the claimant stopped working on June 13,
1974. His physician started treating
him on December 2, 1974. He was found
to be ill of pulmonary tuberculosis, bilateral, far advanced, per X-ray taken
on January 2, 1975. By February 17,
1975 there was a slight improvement in his condition as a result of another
X-ray per his information contained in the notice and claim. There is no evidence on record
particularly an X-ray finding that
on or before June 13,
1974 he was sick of pulmonary tuberculosis,
far advanced, which was the time he stopped working and allegedly
went on sick leave. The illness was categorically ascertained only as of January 2, 1975. It is not
shown for what illness he had been on sick leave beginning June 13, 1974 until
September 1974 as stated in the notice. These are alleged per notice and claim and substantiated by the
physician’s report without, however, any X-ray report presented as the records
disclosed.

In the absence of any
categorical showing that the claimant was ill of the illness subject of this
claim as of June 13, 1974, this Commission is constrained to believe that the
illness surfaced after that date for the same was only categorically
ascertained on January 2, 1975 and the claimant was consulting a physician
beginning December 2, 1974 only. It
cannot also be stated that the illness supervened in the course of
employment for although the claimant as he claimed he was on sick leave starting
June 13, 1974 the illness which was made the basis of such sick leave is not
mentioned categorically. The claimant,
assuming that he was sick as of that date, may have been ill of another illness
other than pulmonary tuberculosis which is not mentioned in the claim, hence, no basis from the standpoint of jurisdiction. If he was ill of pulmonary tuberculosis as
of June 13, 1974 there is no X-ray result presented purportedly showing that he
was ill of such sickness.” (Rollo, p. 29-30; Underlining supplied)

The petition is impressed with merit.

Significantly, the respondent corporation did not present
evidence to prove its allegation in its notice of controversion filed with the
Regional Office that the alleged disabling condition of the petitioner was not
due to an illness directly caused or aggravated by the nature of his
employment.

Contrary to the findings of the WCC, the petitioner was diagnosed
as suffering from pulmonary tuberculosis (PTB Far Advanced) as of June 13,
1974 by the corporation’s own physician Dr. Herminio Ilagan. (Annex “A”, Petition) On the same
day, the petitioner filed his sick leave. On September 10, 1974, the petitioner had his chest X-ray and was found
to have “marked improvement of lesions in both lungs as compared with X-ray plate taken on July 1974.”
(Annex I, Petition, p. 32, Rollo) On January 2, 1975, the petitioner had
another chest X-ray with the following result: “marked improvement of lesions in both lungs as compared with
previous X-ray taken September and November, 1974.” (Annex J, Petition, p. 33)

On February 17, 1975, the petitioner had another chest X-ray and
was found to have slight improvement of lesions as compared with plate No. 04
taken January 2, 1975. (Annex
“K”, Petition, p. 34).

The petitioner was also examined on December 2, 1974 by Dr. Alfredo P. Del Rosario, a medical officer of
Camp Crame. The “Physician’s
Report of Sickness or Accident” signed by Dr. Del Rosario shows that the
petitioner was suffering from Far Advanced PTB “due to the nature of his work
rendering overtime.” The physician certified that as of March 11, 1975
when the physician’s report was accomplished the petitioner was still under
treatment.

These findings tend to show that the petitioner’s sickness had
its onset or at the very least was aggravated during his employment with
the respondent corporation. Since there
is no dispute that the applicable law to the case is the Workmen’s Compensation
Act, as amended, the principle of presumption of compensability applies (Barbas
v. Victorias Milling Co., Inc., 131
SCRA 542 [1984]). So is the rule on
aggravation under the former law. (See
Santarin v. Employees’ Compensation Commission, 124 SCRA 548 [1983])

It is to be noted
that the petitioner’s claim for compensation
benefits which was granted by the Regional Office was based on Section
13 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, as amended. The records, however, disclose that since he stopped working on
June 13, 1974, the petitioner has not yet returned to work in view of his last medical examination performed by Dr.
Alfredo P. del Rosario of Camp Crame wherein the petitioner was diagnosed to be
suffering from “Far advanced PTB” which requires treatment for an indefinite
period. (Annex B, Petition) Although
his chest X-rays showed slight improvement of his lungs, Dr. del Rosario
certified that as of March 5, 1975, the petitioner was still under his
treatment.

Under these circumstances, Section 14 of the Workmen’s
Compensation Act, as amended providing for temporary total disability for labor
would have been more appropriate. The
record, however, is silent on how many years, months and days the petitioner
would have been kept from his job by his sickness. The petitioner is now more than sixty (60) years old, hence
restoring him to full capacity for resumed employment is obviously remote. We rule that applying the law and equitable
considerations to the facts of the case, the maximum P6,000.00 under Section 14
is fair compensation as far as the petitioner and the respondent corporation
are both concerned. (See Barbas v.
Victoria Milling Co., Inc. supra).

WHEREFORE, the decision of the Workmen’s Compensation
Commission dismissing the claim for compensation is hereby REVERSED and SET
ASIDE. The decision rendered by the Workmen’s
Compensation Section, Manila is REINSTATED but MODIFIED as follows:

The private respondent shall pay petitioner Jesus Fernandez the
sum of SIX THOUSAND PESOS (P6,000.00) pursuant to the provision of the
Workmen’s Compensation Act, as amended; the petitioner’s counsel of record the
sum of SIX HUNDRED PESOS (P600.00) in accordance with Rule 27 of the Rules of
the Workmen’s Compensation Commission on attorney’s fees and the sum of SIXTY
SIX PESOS (P66.00) to the Department of Labor and Employment which now
supervises the implementation of decisions under the Old Workmen’s Compensation
Act.

SO ORDERED.

Feliciano, Bidin, Davide, Jr., and
Romero, JJ., concur.