REMEDIOS MALUPA VDA. DE LAYAG, PETITIONER, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, (BUREAU OF PUBLIC WORKS), RESPONDENT.

The Workmen’s Compensation Commission, through its Chairman, Mrs.
N. Baens del. Rosario, turned down the claim of herein petitioner for
compensation benefits by reason of the death of her husband, Alberto Layag, while an employee in the Bureau of Public
Works.  Petitioner appealed.

The pertinent faces are stated in the decision appealed from, as follows:

“It appears that Alberto Layag
worked as chief-cook since 1948 in the tugboat M/V Chester of the respondent’s
Bureau of Public Works after a pre-employment, physical examination performed
on him which qualified him for job.  As
chief-cook, he was assisted by Vicencio Tomas. 
He received P6.50 daily were working from 5:00 a.m, to 7:00 p.m. 
His duties con listed of marketing, cooking food for the crew members,
setting the table for them, washing the dishes and utensils used in the preparation of food.  On certain occasions it was alleged that he
helped in cleaning the deck.  Some­time
in 1949 he was allegedly hospitalized at the Cagayan
de Oro Hospital and in 1955 he contracted influenza
and spat blood.  On January 23, 1960 he was confined at the San Lazaro
Hospital due to fever, body
weakness, and brown spots on the skin diagnosed by his attending physician Dr. Calilong as hemorrhagic
fever.  From February 8, 1960 to March 2,
1960 he was admitted at the North General Hospital for hypoplastic
anemia and ascariasis, re-admitted at the North
General Hospital for the same illness and he died on March 29, 1960 of thrombocytopanic purpura with
cerebral hemorrhage and hypoplastic anemia.  His widow, claimant herein, filed a death
benefit claim for herself and in
behalf of all her minor children with the deceased Alberto Layag.”

The issue posed by the
parties is whether or not the cause of death was service connected.  In returning a negative conclusion the Commission found that aside from his duties as chief-cook and the usual chores incidental
thereto, such as marketing, preparing
and setting the table and serving during meals, the deceased performance no other work, let alone scrubbing the floor,
cleaning and painting the boat, as petitioner alleges; and that the record of
his illness does not reveal any causal relation with his job.  Concerning the particular ailment of which he
died to Commission took into account the research and study made its senior
medical officer, reproduced in the decision as follows:

“Thrombocytopanic purpura
is a disorder of the blood characterized by reduction of blood platelets, which
may be primary or secondary.

Primary thrombocytopanic purpura – the hemorrhagic disorder is due to reduction in
blood platelets which has not been traced to any demonstrable un­derlying cause
and usually cured by aplenectromy.

Secondary thrombocytopanic purpura – condition in which the reduction of platelets
occur due to involvement of the bone marrow by infiltration of foreign cells like cancer or carcomas
cellea or some other toxic substances like alcohol,
etc.

The cerebral hemorrhage and hypoplastic
anemia in this particular case may be due to defective bleeding and clotting
time which is part of the illness, thrombocytopanic purpura.”

Petitioner now says the foregoing medical study is not competent evidence in this case because it was not formally offered and receive with notice
to the claimant, and that if such
evidence is disregarded the presumption established in Section 43 of the
Workmen’s Compensation Act must prevail, namely, that “in any proceeding for the en­forcement of the claim for compensation under
this Act, it shall be presumed in the absence of substantial evidence to
the contrary – (1) that the claim comes
within the provisions of this Act.”

 The cause of death here is
not disputed: thrombocytopanic purpura with cerebral hemorrhage and hypoplastic
anemia.  All that the Commission did was to go into the clinical causes of the disease as revealed by the studies made by its own medical
officer.  This the Commission could do to
properly inform itself on the technical questions involved, pursuant to one of
its Rules (Sec. 9), which provides that “in the hearing, investigation and determination of
any question or controversy and
in the exercise of any duties or powers, the Hearing Officer or Commissioner shall act according to justice and equity and the substantial merits of the
case, without regard to technicalities or legal forms, and shall not be bound
by any technical rule of legal
evidence but may inform himself of
their merit in such manner as to attain objectives of law.”

The illness of which the
deceased Alberto Tayag died shows that it was foreign
to the nature of his work, and since this fact is supported by substantial evidence, the presumption in Section 43 of the Workmen’s Compensation
Act does not operate.

The decision appealed from is affirmed, without cost.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Zaldivar, Sanchez, Castro,
and Angeles, JJ.,
concur.