CONSTANCIA P. GACULA, PETITIONER, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIP­PINES (BUREAU OF PUBLIC SCHOOLS), WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION DEFUNCT AND/OR COMPENSATION APPEALS AND REVIEW S…

This is a petition for review on certiorari of the order
of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission dated December 18, 1975 in RO4-WC Case
No. 153282-424-XX, reversing the award made by the Acting Referee, Regional
Office No. 4, Workmen’s Compensation Section, Manila, awarding petitioner
disability compensation benefits under
the Workmen’s Compensation Act.

The undisputed facts are as follows:

“The claimant started working with the respondent on November
1, 1939 up to October 1, 1970 with interruption during the time of war as a classroom teacher and was
assigned in the Division of Ilocos Sur. As such classroom teacher, she handled elementary grade pupils teaching
academic subjects such as Reading, Writing, Arithmetic, Music, Social Studies,
Pilipino, Home Economics, English and Character Education. Her last annual salary was P3,380.74
(Exhibit ‘B’).

“Aside from teaching academic subjects, she had homework(s) to
do such as lesson plans for the subjects to be taught, writing boardwork, prepa­ration
of teaching aids and devices, and reading subject matter and references. She did these during night time usually from
8:00 P.M. to 10:00 P.M. Aside from
these, she also attended to problems of students and did some home vistations
which in so doing, she was forced to hike to distant homes, cross streams and
sometimes caught by heavy rain. Her
schedule of duty was from 7:30 A.M. to 11:30 A.M., and then, from 1:40 P.M. to
5:00 P.M. She worked five (5) days a
week, but on Saturdays she had to attend seminars and conferences.

“While in the employ of the respondent, claimant became
afflicted with several ailments and upon consultation with her attending
physician, Dr. Alfredo A. Cadena, she was found suffering from incipient PTB,
chronic rheumatoid arthritis, laryngitis and hypotension-­anemia (Exhibits ‘C’
and ‘D’). Her first treatment with the
said physician was on October 5, 1968 when Dr. Alfredo A. Cadena made a home
visit to her at her residence in Tamurong, Candon, Ilocos Sur. After a thorough medical examination and
taking the history of the case, the claimant was found afflicted with the
aforecited ailments. In the report
issued by Dr. Alfredo Cadena, he categorically stated that claimant’s ailments
were the result of the nature of her employment; that the same were aggravated
by the nature of her duties as a classroom teacher; and, that said ailments resulted in permanent
total disability for labor such that he advised claimant to retire from the
service. Among the medicines he
administered to claimant are the following: reipar, ergapyrin injections, ergapyrin, pyrazon, ketazon reozon pills,
primafort tablets, acromysin capsule, clusivol capsules, hemotonine injections,
penicillin 500 mg. tablets, trisovit tablets, enervon C injections, strepto­mycin
injections and B complex injections. For consideration of professional services rendered and medicines
administered, he received from the claimant the sum of P3,000.00, morer or
less, which however, is not properly supported by official receipts.

“Despite these ailments, claimant continued performing her
regular duties but when the manifestations of body weakness became prevailing,
she applied for retirement for she felt that she could no longer continue teaching on account of her
ailments. On October 1, 1970, the
claimant was effectively retired.”

On May 24, 1974, the petitioner filed with the Manila Regional
Office of the Department of Labor a claim for disability compensation benefits
pursuant to the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, or Act No. 3428,
as amended.

On July 18, 1975, Acting Referee Isauro G. Marmita rendered a
decision, finding the claim meritorious and ordering respondent Republic of the
Philippines (Bureau of Public Schools) to pay among others, petitioner the sum
of Six Thousand Pesos (P6,000.00) as disability compensation benefits.

On December 18, 1975,
respondent Workmen’s Compensation Commission, acting on a motion for reconsideration filed by respondent Republic
of the Philippines (Bureau of Public Schools), reversed the decision of the
Acting Referee and dismissed the claim of the petitioner allegedly for lack of
merit, thus:

“The Hearing Referee ruled in favor of claimant awarding her
com­pensation benefits in the amount of P6,000.00. Dissatisfied with the decision, the Solicitor General filed a
motion for reconsideration on the following grounds: (1) that the claimant stopped working not because of disability
but because of her application for optional retirement; (2) that there was no
proof that the claimant suffered partial permanent or total permanent
disability.

“The record shows that the claimant filed this claim on May
24, 1974 and she was then 67 years old. According to her, she was suffering from incipient PTB, laryngitis,
chronic rheumatoid arthritis, hypotension-anemia, all contracted while in the
service of the respondent as a public school teacher. The claim was duly supported by WCC Form No. 4 which among other
showed that the claimant was first treated on October 5, 1968 her acute
articular rheuma. There was no proof,
however, that the claimant was actually disabled from work. Furthermore, the claimant actually stopped
working due to optional retirement at 63 years (old age) on October 1,
1970. The claim was actually filed on
May 24, 1974, there was no proof whatsoever, that the retirement was due to
disability or illness, consequently, there was no impairment of earning
capacity on the part of the claimant.

“The law as passed by our Legislature was intended to protect
workers and to compensate them for actuall loss of earning capacity. This
was not shown in the
instant claim.“

Clearly, the decision of
the Regional Office and the order of the Workmen’s Compensation
Commission were based on the record presented by claimant.

In dismissing the claim of claimant, the position of the
respondent Commission is that there is no proof that the claimant was actually
disabled from work; that the claimant actually stopped working due to optional
retirement at the age of 63 on October 1, 1970; that the claim was actually
filed on May 24, 1974; and that there was no proof what­soever that the
retirement was due to disability or illness. Consequently, there was no impairment of earning capacity on the part of
the claimant.

On the other hand, petitioner maintained that the decision of the
acting referee awarding her disability compensation benefits had already become
final and executory due to the failure of the respondent’s counsel (Solicitor
General) to file the motion for reconsideration within the reglementary period;
that even if the Solicitor General filed a timely motion for reconsideration,
still the Work­men’s Compensation Commission committed an error in dismissing
the petitioner’s claim, considering that the order of December 18, 1975 had not
taken into account Sections 44 and 45 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, as
amended,; and that the respondent failed to file the required notice of
controversion within the period provided for by Section 45 of said Act.

On the issue of the finality and executory character of the
decision of the acting referee, the record shows that the Solicitor General
filed on September 2, 1975 the motion for reconsideration, which is beyond the
15-day period from receipt on July 21, 1975 of said decision, as admitted by
the Office of the Solicitor General (Annexes E and E-1, pp. 15-16, rec.). The claim of the Solicitor General that a
motion for extension was filed is not shown by any concrete proof or
evidence. The record fails to disclose
any such motion for extension. Under
such circumstances, it is OUR view that respondent Commission has no valid
authority to review the referee’s decision.

WE agree with the claim of the petitioner that nowhere in the
whole record of the instant case is it apparent that a notice of controversion
was filed by the Republic of the Philippines within the period required by
Section 45 of Act 3428, as
amended. Consequently, and in line with
the decisions of the Supreme Court, the respondent thereby waived or renounced
by operation of law its right to question the validity or reasonableness of the
petitioner’s claim for compensation (Gen. Textile Inc. vs. Tuay, 42 SCRA 660
[1971]; Pampanga Sugar Mills vs. Vda. de Espeleta, et al., 22 SCRA 325;
National Dev. Co. vs. WCC, L-21724, April 27, 1967; and Lilia D. Simon vs.
Republic, G.R. No. L-42510, June 30, 1976, 72 O.G. 8890).

There is substantial evidence to support the Workmen’s
Compensation claim of petitioner. The
Physician’s Report of Sickness or Accident proved that during the petitioner’s
employment as classroom elementary teacher of respondent, Bureau of Public
Schools in Candon, Ilocos Sur, she was found to be suffering from incipient
PTB, laryngitis, chronic rheumatoid arthritis, hypotension anemia. She stopped working on October 1, 1970 on
the advice of the physician for her to retire from the service to be confined
at home for complete rest and treatment.

In awarding her claim for
compensation benefits, the Department of Labor, Regional Office No. 4 Acting
Referee Isauro G. Marmita made the following findings:

“There is undoubtedly no question that when the claimant
started working with the respondent in 1939, the former was physically fit and
healthy and devoid of any ailment particularly the aforementioned ailments,
there being a physical and mental examination as a pre-employment condition for
appointment in the government service. It is likewise a fact that the claimant first experienced symptoms of
her ailments after a long, continuous service
with the respondent or sometime in 1968 when she complained of back and chest
pains, hoarse voice and pain of the throat, pains of the joints, muscles,
cramps and general body weakness which notwithstanding thereof, she continued
to work and was only compelled to stop on October 1, 1970 when she could no
longer stand the pains of her ailments. In the instant case, the claimant exerted much mental efforts in the
performance of her duties – talking the whole day in teaching and working even
late at night in preparing lesson plans, writing boardwork, preparing teaching
aids and devices and reading subject matter and references which rendered her
lack of necessary rest and sleep. Undoubtedly, her strenuous work lowered her body resistance to diseases
but she continued teaching (and) unmindful of its consequences, her ailments
exacerbated resulting in her total disability for labor.

“Under the circumstances, a rebuttable presumption exists that
the ailments of the claimant were contracted in the course of employment and/or
at least (were) aggravated by the nature of such employment.”

These findings alone
would sufficiently support the petitioner’s claim for compensation
benefits. When she stopped working on
October 1, 1970, because of her ailment, which worsened since 1968, the same
can only mean that she ceased to work from said date until her application for
optional retirement on the ground of physical disability, was approved. It would take several days before her
superiors, including the then Secretary (now Minister) of Education and Culture
or his representative could approve her retirement. She had to prepare her application for retirement and secure all
the supporting papers, including certificates of clearance pertaining
to her financial and property responsibility, as well as medical certificate
attesting to her physical disability, to justify her optional retirement at age
63. She orally informed her principal
teacher in October, 1970 about her disability (Annex B, p. 8, rec.). She was a school teacher in Candon, Ilocos
Sur, and said papers had to be sent to the then Department (now Ministry) of
Education and Culture in Manila all the way from Candon, Ilocos Sur, through
the principal teacher, the division superintendent of schools in the province,
and the regional director. From the
time of filing until the date of approval of said application for retirement,
more than three days must have inevitably transpired, during which she was
physically incapacitated for work.

As consistently held by the Supreme Court in a number of cases,
when the illness upon which the claim is premised supervened during the period
of employment, said illness arose out of it or was at least aggravated by the
nature of employment in the absence of substantial evidence to the contrary
(Magalona vs. WCC & NASSCO, 21 SCRA 1199 [1967]). The burden of proof to destroy such presumption is laid at the
door of the employer (Industrial Textile Mfg. Co. vs. Florzo, 17 SCRA 1104
[1966]) and the failure to discharge the burden makes the prima facie
presumption conclusive (Bautista vs. WCC, L-43027, January 28, 1979).

Also in the similar case of Victoria D. Despe vs. Workmen’s
Compensation Commission, et al. (L-42828, February 28, 1977), a case involving
a public school teacher who was forced to retire at the age of 61, the Supreme
Court, speaking through Justice Ruperto G. Martin, held:

“Besides, it cannot be denied that the illness which constrained
petitioner to apply for optional retirement occurred during the course of her
employment as a public school teacher. As such, there is a presumption mandated by Section 44 of the Workmen’s
Compensation Act that the employee’s illness arose out of, or at least
aggravated by said employment, and with this legal presumption, the burden of
proof shifts to the employer and the employee is relieved of the burden to show
causation. In the case before us, respondent
has not only failed to controvert the claim of petitioner within the statutory
period but also failed to offer sufficient proof that the illness of petitioner
was not work-connected or work-aggravated.”

Well entrenched also is the doctrine laid down by this Court and
as such has formed part of our legal system to the effect that tuberculosis
(PTB) is work-connected in the occupation of a teacher and therefore
compensable (Jacob vs. WCC, et al., 72 SCRA 575 [1976]; Vallo vs. WCC, et al.,
73 SCRA 623 [1976]).

In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, and respondent
has not shown any incontrovertible evidence, Section 44(1) of the Workmen’s
Compensation Act (Act No. 3428, as amended) directs that it shall be presumed
that the claim comes within the purview of the law.

Besides, the Workmen’s Compensation Act is a social legislation
designed to give relief to laborers and employees in case of injury or sickness
such that its provisions should be given a liberal interpretation in order to
fully carry into effect its beneficent provisions. Doubts as to the right of compensation should be resolved in
favor of the employees (Industrial Textile Mfg. Co. of the Phil. vs. Florzo, supra;
Vallo vs. WCC, et al., supra).

WHEREFORE, THE DECISION OF RESPONDENT COMMISSION IS HEREBY
REVERSED AND SET ASIDE AND RESPONDENT BUREAU OF PUBLIC SCHOOLS IS HEREBY
DIRECTED

1.   TO PAY THE CLAIMANT THE SUM OF SIX THOUSAND
(P6,000.00) PESOS AS COMPENSATION BENEFITS;

2.   TO REIMBURSE THE CLAIMANT HER MEDICAL AND
HOSPITAL EXPENSES DULY SUPPORTED BY PROPER RECEIPTS;

3.   TO PAY THE CLAIMANT SIX HUNDRED (P600.00)
PESOS AS ATTORNEY’S FEES; AND

4.   TO PAY SIXTY-ONE (P61.00) PESOS AS
ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS.

SO ORDERED.

Teehankee, (Chairman), Fernandez, Guerrero, De Castro, and Melencio-Herrera, JJ., concur.