JUANITA NAIRA, PETITIONER, VS. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, MANILA AND COMPANIA GENERAL DE TABACOS DE FILIPINAS, RESPONDENTS

The facts of this case, as found by the Workmen’s Compensation Commission, are stated in the appealed decision to be as follows:

“* * *. The late Juan Naira had been employed by the
respondent in its river barge for 26 years, first as an oarsman, and
later as barge pilot until his death on November 13, 1958. His monthly
salary, at the time of this death, was P72.20 with rice allowance.
Aside from his duties as helmsman, he helps in the loading and
unloading of cargoes on the barge. On November 12, 1958, Juan Naira
worked up to 1:30 p.m. helping in loading the barge with cargoes
consisting of 12 sacks of cotton seeds and fertilizers, 3 big loaded
barrels and 2 small ones, the three big barrels were heavy so that 3
persons, including the late Juan Naira, carried the barrels, one at a
time, to the barge. After the loading, Juan Naira went home to take his
lunch. Not long after he had returned to the tabacalera compound at
2:00 p.m., he began to complain of stomachache. He was brought to Dr.
Melendres’ Clinic at Centro, Ilagan. Because of the intense pain, he
was brought the next day to the Isabela Provincial Hospital, where he
died. Dr. M. Lim, Junior Resident Physician of said Hospital, who
attended him diagnosed his illness as acute mesenteric thrombosis,
which was later confirmed, as the cause of death, when an autopsy was
performed on the deceased Juan Naira. * * *.”

The claimant-widow averred, and tried to prove, that her husband
died of pulmonary, tuberculosis; she also submitted a death certificate
showing the cause of the death of her husband to be acute beri-beri.
But from the evidence, particularly the autopsy report, the Commission
arrived at the conclusion that the cause of the death of the late Juan
Naira was,none other than acute mesenteric thrombosis, and denied
compensation because:

“* * *. Being merely sick of mesenteric thrombosis
which caused his death, the same, nevertheless, would not suffice to
place the claim within the orbit of the Workmen’s Compensation Act. There
must be a showing that such ailment or disease was directly caused by
his employment or aggravated by, or the result of the nature of such
employment. We have perused the entire record of the case and
found no evidence showing that the sickness of acute mesenteric
thrombosis was traceable to the employment. In other words, no evidence w«s shown which would link solid illness with the nature of his work.” (Italics added)

Hence, upon denial of her motion for reconsideration, claimant resorted to this Court for review.

We agree with appellant that the decision should be reversed. In
demanding that the claimant should establish that the cause of death
was directly brought about by the employment, or aggravated by the
nature of the employment, the Workmen’s Compensation Commission has
chosen to ignore the presumption expressly established in Section 43
(1) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act (No. 3428), as amended by
Republic Act 772;

“SEC. 43. Presumption.—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.”

In other words, in the absence of proof that the injury or death
supervening in the course of employment has arisen because of the
nature of the same, the death or injury is, by law, compensable, unless
the employer clearly establishes that it was not caused or aggravated
by such employment or work. Mere absence of evidence that the mishap
was traceable to the employment does not suffice to reject the claim;
there must be credible showing that it was not so traceable (Batangas Trans. Co. vs. Vda. de Rivera, G.R. No. L-7658, May 8, 1956; Bohol Land Trans. Co. vs.
Vda. de Medanguit, 70 Phil., 685). In fact, in the Batangas
Transportation case, we held that where the cause of death supervening
in the course of employment is unknown, the death is
compensable. In the case now before us, the fact that the illness
followed closely the exertions of the deceased in unloading the
employer’s barge strongly supports the inference that the thrombosis
leading to his death was at least precipitated by strain.

In view of the foregoing, the decision brought on appeal for review
is hereby reversed, and this case is remanded to the Workmen’s
Compensation Commission for the determination of the amount of
compensation due the petitioner and the other heirs of the deceased
worker, with costs against the respondent corporation.

Bengzon, C. J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Barrera, Paredes, Dizon, Regala and Makalintal, JJ., concur.