MANILA TIMES PUB­LISHING CO., INC., PETITIONER, VS. WORKMEN’S COMPENSA­TION COMMISSION AND NITTO P. ITONA, RESPONDENTS.

This is a petition to review the decision of the Workmen’s
Compensation Commission in-RPO-WC Case No. C-1094 entitled “Nitto P.
Itona, Claimant, versus, The Manila Times Publishing Company, Inc.,
Respondent”, the dispositive part of which reads:

“WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from should be, as it is
hereby AFFIRMED and respondent is hereby ordered to:

“1.  Pay claimant, the amount of SIX THOUSAND PESOS
(P6,000.00) as dis­ability compensation pursuant to Sec­tion 14 of the Act, as
amended.

“2.  Pay claimant, the amount of THREE HUNDRED
EIGHTY TWO PESOS and 92/100 (P382.92) as reimbursement of medical expenses.

“3.  Pay this Commission, the amount of SIXTY SIX
PESOS (P66.00) as administrative fee and cost of this review.

SO ORDERED.

Quezon City, Philippines, December 31, 1975.”^[1]

The claimant, Nitto P. Itona, private respondent herein, filed
with the Workmen’s Compensation Unit of Rizal Province a claim for disability
benefit on account of his illness which supervened during his employment with
the Manila Times Publishing Co., Inc., petitioner herein.

The Acting Referee of the Workmen’s Compensation Unit of the
Rizal Provincial Office rendered judgment ordering the employer to pay
disability compensation to Nitto P. Itona and to reimburse him of his medical
ex­penses.

The Manila Times Publishing Co., Inc. appealed to the Workmen’s
Compensation Commission which affirmed the decision of the Acting Referee.

The, petitioner assigns the following errors:

“First Assignment
of Error

RESPONDENT WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION IN ITS SAID DECISION
HAS WORKED OUT A COMMISSION OF ERROR IN ORDERING PETITIONER HEREIN (RESPONDENT
BELOW) TO PAY CLAIMANT (RESPONDENT HERE­IN) ‘DISABILITY COMPENSATION FROM OCTO­BER
15, 1972 TO THE PRESENT’, AFTER AN ALLEGED EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATION HAS
ADMITTEDLY CEASED WHEN PETITIONER’S BUSINESS WAS ORDERED CLOSED UPON THE
PROCLAMATION OF MARTIAL LAW ON SEPTEM­BER 21, 1972.”

“Second Assignment
of Error

RESPONDENT WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION IN ITS SAID DECISION
HAS WORKED OUT A COMMISSION OF ERROR IN ORDERING PAYMENT OF DISABILITY COMPEN­SATION
FROM OCTOBER 15, 1972 TO THE PRESENT WITHOUT MEDICAL EVALUATION.”

“Third Assignment
of Error

RESPONDENT WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION IN ITS SAID DECISION
HAS WORKED OUT A COMMISSION OF ERROR IN ORDERING REIMBURSEMENT OF ALLEGED ME­DICAL
EXPENSES WITHOUT THE RESPONDENT HAVING COMPLIED WITH SEC. 13, PAR. 5,
WCA.”

“Fourth Assignment
of Error

RESPONDENT WORKMEN’S COMPENSA­TION COMMISSION IN ITS SAID DECISION
HAS WORKED OUT A COMMISSION OF ERROR IN HOLDING THAT, ‘RESPONDENT’S (PE­TITIONER
HEREIN) ALLEGATION THAT THE SETTLEMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF P8,000.00 EXTINGUISHED
ITS LIABILITY UNDER THE WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION ACT IS UN­TENABLE.”

“Fifth Assignment
of Error

RESPONDENT WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION IN ITS SAID DECISION
HAS WORKED OUT A COMMISSION OF ERROR IN CONCLUDING THAT THERE IS ‘NO SHOWING
THAT HIS ILLNESS HAS BEEN CURED OR ARRESTED.”

“Sixth Assignment
of Error

RESPONDENT WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION
IN ITS SAID DECISION HAS WORKED OUT A COMMISSION OF ERROR IN NOT HOLDING THAT
RESPONDENT IS ON A MERE CASUAL STATUS, WITH LIGHT WORK WHICH COULD NOT CAUSE OR
AGGRAVATE ALLEGED PTB, AND AS SUCH NOT ENTITLED TO DISABILITY BENEFITS AND
MEDICAL EXPENSES.”^[2]

The facts, as found by the Workmen’s Compensation Commission,
are:

“A perusal of the record disclosed that claimant Nitto Itona
was formerly employed and assigned in the Promotions Department of the
respondent with a monthly salary of P570.00. He worked from 8:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M., but the varied activities of his
duties de­manded of him to work overtime, more particularly in undertaking
special coverages and assignments, which unduly exposed him to the elements and
strain and stress. Because of the
nature of his employment, claimant contracted tuberculosis sometime in
September, 1972, as shown by his x-ray examination on September 18, 1972, which
indicated that he was suffering from PTB, mode­rately advanced, with cavity
formation, bilateral, with stelectasis on the left lung. His illness was reported to this employer,
thru the Marketing Director and was referred to the Company physician, who
extended his medication on October 31, 1972 and November 4, 1972. Upon the declaration of martial law, respondent
was forced to stop operations and some of its em­ployees were forced to stop
work­ing. Claimant however stopped
working because of his disability as a result of his illness.

After a careful perusal of the foregoing facts, we reject
respondent’s contentions in seeking a reversal of the decision. Respondent’s allegation that the settlement
in the amount of P8,000.00 extinguished its liability under the Workmen’s
Compen­sation Act is untenable. The
amount of P8,000.00, received by the com­plainant, was in consideration of the
dismissal of a case for unfair labor practices filed by the claimant against
the respondent before the NLRC, and the record shows that this amount repre­sents
claimant’s increase in salary, bonus and living allowance and was never
intended to cover compensation benefits for disability resulting from illness
contracted in the course of his employ­ment.”^[3]

It appears that the claimant had filed a case for unfair labor
practice against the Manila Times Publish­ing Co., Inc. with the National Labor
Relations Commis­sion. This unfair
labor practice case was dismissed upon payment by the Manila Times Publishing
Co., Inc. to the claimant of the amount of P8,000.00 representing claimant’s
increase in salary, bonus and living allowance. The amount did not include compensation benefits for dis­ability
resulting from illness.

The contention that the employer-employee relation­ship between
the Manila Times Publishing Co., Inc. and Nitto P. Itona ceased upon the
proclamation of Martial Law on September 21, 1972 is not meritorious. Although the business of publishing
newspapers ceased with the proclamation of Martial Law, the petitioner
continued to do business as a corporation, receiving printing jobs from other
companies, leasing and renting its facilities including its buildings.

It is a fact that the illness of the claimant, private respondent
herein, supervened during the period of his employment. Hence, it is presumed that the claim is
compensable.^[4]

This Court has held:

“x x x In a very recent case penned by Mr. Justice Claudio Tee­hankee,
this Court held: ‘xxx assuming the employee’s illness may be ruled out as an
occupational di­sease or that the causal link between the nature of his
employment and his ailment has been insufficiently shown, nevertheless, it is
to be presumed as mandated by Section 44 of the Work­men’s Compensation Act,
that the em­ployee’s illness which supervened during his employment either
arose out of, or at least aggravated by said employment and with this presumption,
the burden of proofs shifts to the employer and the employee is relieved of the
burden to show causation. In the case
before Us, the respondent has failed to dis­charge that burden. x x x “^[5]

In the present case the petitioner had not adduced evidence to
rebut the presumption that the claim of Nitto P. Itona is compensable.

Inasmuch as there is no showing that the illness of the private
respondent, Nitto P. Itona, has been arrested or cured, he is entitled to the
maximum amount of P6,000.00 as disability benefit. He is also entitled to reimburse­ment of medical expenses which
may be supported by proper receipts.

WHEREFORE, the petition for review is denied and the
decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission sought to be reviewed is
hereby affirmed with the modification that Nitto P. Itona shall be reimbursed
such medical expenses as may be established by proper receipts.

SO ORDERED.

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

Makasiar, J., concurs in a
separate opinion.

^[1]
Annex “A”, Rollo, pp. 16-17.

^[2]
Petition for Review, Rollo, p. 11, p. 12, p. 13.

^[3]
Decision, Rollo, pp. 15-16.

^[4]
Section 44, Workmen’s Compensation Act, as amended.

^[5]
Simon vs. Republic of the Philippines (Supreme Court), 71 SCRA 643, 646.

6 pt
6 pt
0
3