PEDRO ILINGAN, PETITIONER, VS. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION AND PHILIPPINE NATIONAL RAILWAYS, RESPONDENTS.

Petition for review on certiorari of the decision dated
January 30, 1975 of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission in R04-WC Case No.
12552 reversing the decision dated September 4, 1972 of the acting labor
referee of Regional Office No. IV of the Department of Labor, awarding com­pensation
benefit to the petitioner Pedro Ilingan.

Petitioner Pedro Ilingan was employed by respondent in various
capacities as clerk-telegrapher, relief station agent and ultimately as station
agent, until he stopped working on April 1, 1967 upon reaching the age of 63,
after which he filed his application for optional retirement.

On April 27, 1970, he filed, through counsel, a claim for
disability benefit with the Department of Labor.

On September 7, 1970, private respondent filed its report
controverting the claim.

On September 4, 1972, after hearing on the merits, Regional
Office No. IV of the Department of Labor, rendered an award granting
compensation benefits to petitioner herein (Annex A, pp. 11-16, rec.).  Dissatisfied, private respondent appealed the
decision to the Commission.

On January 30, 1975, the Commission rendered its decision,
reversing the award (Annex C, pp. 22-­24, rec.).

Petitioner urges that the Commission erred

“IN NOT TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THAT PETITIONER’S ILLNESS HAD
SUPERVENED AT THE TIME OF HIS EMPLOYMENT AND HENCE SHOULD BE PRESUMED TO HAVE
ARISEN OUT OF SAID EMPLOYMENT OR WAS AGGRAVATED BY THE SAME” and

“IN NOT APPLYING SECTION 45 OF ACT NO. 3428, AS AMENDED,
CONSIDERING THAT RESPONDENT PHILIPPINE NATIONAL RAILWAYS FAILED TO FILE A
TIMELY CONTROVERSION TO THE RIGHTS OF CLAIMANT TO COMPENSATION.”

Indeed, the physician’s report (p. 116, WCC sec.) dated July 10,
1970 and the certificate of chest X-ray results (p. 117, id.) dated March 15,
1967 of petitioner with the impression “PTB minimal right”, and
“chronic bronchial asthma” were ignored by the respondent
Commission.  Evidently, the findings in
his chest X-ray prompted petitioner to stop working upon reaching the age of 63
on April 1, 1967 and to apply for optional retirement.  He may not wait for his body to waste away or
his condition to worsen by applying for retirement at the age of 65, when he is
entitled under the law to an earlier retirement.  The chest X-ray report should have been given
great weight and credence.  This is the
best evidence that petitioner can submit under the circumstances.  For, under Section 23 of Act 3428, as
amended, “after receiving an injury or contracting sickness and during the
period of his disability and rehabilitation, the laborer shall at reasonable times and places submit to examination by a
duly qualified physician or surgeon and rehabilitation technician designated
and paid by the employer or insurance carrier. 
The laborer shall be entitled to have a physician or surgeon and
rehabilitation technician designated by himself at such examination; x x
x” (underscoring supplied).

WE ruled times without
number that:

“x x x (T)he law presumes, in the absence of substantial
evidence to the contrary, that the claim is com­pensable.  The burden to disconnect, by substantial
evidence, the injury or sickness from employment, is laid at the employer’s
door.  Petitioner failed to discharge
this burden.  So rigid is the rule that
even where the cause of the employee’s death is unknown — as petitioner claims
— ­the right to compensation subsists. 
Reason for this is that the Work­men’s Compensation Act is a social
legislation; it is designed to give relief to the workman; therefore, to
effectuate its purpose, it must be liberally construed” (ITEMCOP vs.
Florzo, L-21969, Aug. 31, 1966, 17 SCRA 1104, 1110, citing Sec. 44/I/,
Workmen’s Compensation Act; Vda. de Acosta, et al. vs. Workmen’s Compensation
Commission, et al., L-19772, Oct. 31, 1964, 12 SCRA 168, 173; see also Galang
vs. WCC, et al., L-42531, March 30, 1977; Vallo vs. WCC, L-41816, Oct. 29,
1976; Simon vs. RP, L-42510, June 10, 1976).

Furthermore, respondent
failed to seasonably controvert the claim. 
It has been invariably held that “failure on the part of the
employer to file a seasonable notice of controversion of the right of employees
to compensation as required by Section 45 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, as
amended, constitutes a waiver by operation of law of his right to controvert
the employee’s claim for compensation on non-jurisdictional grounds and such
legal defect does not violate the requirement of due process (Carlos vs. Dela
Rosa, 5 SCRA 262, Guardian
Security & Investigation Agency vs. WCC, 34 SCRA 29; Development Bank of
the Phil. vs. WCC, 49 SCRA 365; Phil. Graphics Arts, Inc. vs. Mariano, 53 SCRA
409; Camotes Shipping Corp. vs. Otadoy, 35 SCRA 456 (cited in Simon vs. Rep. of
the Phil. [Supreme Court], G.R. No. L-42510, June 30, 1970).  A claim for compensation filed by an employee
against his employer under the Workmen’s Compensation Act is deemed admitted if
not controverted within the time provided by law (Victorias Milling Co., Inc.
vs. WCC, et al., L-25665, May
22, 1969; Filipino Pipe and Foundry Corp. vs. WCC, et al., L-20381, Dec. 24,
1963; Malan Bros. Watchman Agency vs. Conanan, 7 SCRA 856; A.D. Santos, Inc.
vs. Ventura Vasquez, L-23586, March 20, 1968; General Textiles, Inc. vs. WCC,
et al., L-30428, Feb. 7, 1973, id.). 
Consequently, respondent cannot now claim that the illness of petitioner
was not work-connected or that it was not aggravated by the nature of his
employment.

WHEREFORE, THE DECISION DATED JANUARY 30, 1975 OF THE
RESPONDENT WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION IS HEREBY REVERSED AND SET ASIDE
AND RESPONDENT PHILIPPINE NATIONAL RAILWAYS IS HEREBY ORDERED

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

2. 
TO REIMBURSE CLAIMANT HIS MEDICAL AND HOSPITAL EXPENSES, SUPPORTED BY
PROPER RECEIPTS;

3. 
TO PAY PETITIONER’S COUNSEL THE AMOUNT OF SIX HUNDRED (P600.00) PESOS;
AND

4. 
TO PAY THE WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION THE SUM OF SIXTY-ONE PESOS
(P61.00) AS ADMINISTRATIVE FEES.

SO ORDERED.

Teehankee, (Chairman), Muñoz Palma, Martin, Fernandez, and Guerrero, JJ., concur.