NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT CO., PETITIONER, VS. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION AND GUILLERMA MILLANO, RESPONDENTS.

Respondent Guillerma
Millano had been working as spinner of petitioner
National Development Company, hereinafter referred to
as NDC, since November 1947. While she was in a stopping position, picking up
bobbins, in the premises of the NDC on January 11, 1951, at about 9:00 p.m.,
two (2) roves, each weighing about two (2) kilos, fell upon her back from a
height of seven (7) or eight (8) feet. As a consequence, she felt dizzy and
began spitting blood. A fellow worker, brought her to
the officer in charge, who had her taken to the medical department. The next
morning, she was brought, in a semi-conscious condition, to the Quezon Institute where she was found to be suffering from
pulmonary tuberculosis, chronic, active, bilateral, moderately
advanced. On April 20, 1951, her condition had improved sufficiently to permit
her discharge from the hospital, although not completely cured, in view of
which her medical treatment continued up to October 1955. Prior thereto, or on
February 11, 1951, while still confined in the hospital, she, received a letter
from the NDC Acting General Manager stating that, effective upon the expiration
of her leave privileges, her services with the company were thereby terminated,
with a gratuity equivalent to one (1) month’s wage for every year of service
rendered, “but not exceeding twelve month’s wage.”

Thereafter, she filed her claim for
compensation and, in due course, a hearing officer of Regional Office No. 4,
Department of Labor, rendered a decision directing the NDC to pay P2,995.20 as compensation, plus P1,800 by way of reimbursement
of the medical expenses incurred by the claimant, and P150 as attorney’s fees,
in addition to P30 as fees, under section 55 of Act No. 3428. Upon petition for
review filed by the NDC, Associate Commissioner Perez of the Workmen’s
Compensation Commission caused the case to be set for hearing, before an
officer of the Commission, for the submission of additional evidence on the
medical expenses and doctor’s fees, allegedly paid by the claimant. After appropriate
proceedings, thereafter, said Associate Commissioner rendered a decision
affirming, in effect, said awards of P2,995.20, as
compensation, and P1,800 as medical expenses, but increasing the attorney’s
fees and costs to P224.64 and P35.00, respectively. A reconsideration of this
decision having been denied by the Commission en banc, the NDC brought
this case to Us for review on certiorari upon two (2) grounds, namely: (1) that
the decision appealed from makes “new findings of fact in an appeal on a question
which has not been raised in the pleadings in the petition for review, and is
not supported by the evidence during the trial’ and (2) that claimant’s illness
was not “a result of the nature of employment.”

The first ground is based upon the
following premises, namely: (a) that the claim of Guillerma
Millano was “based on the ground that her
pulmonary tuberculosis was aggravated by the nature of
her employment;” (b) that the decision of the hearing officer was
“based solely on the ground that there was an aggravation of the disease
due to her employment;” (c) that the petition for review of the NDC merely
contested the accuracy of this finding; and (d) that since claimant had not
appealed from the award of the hearing officer, said finding had become final
and conclusive insofar as she is concerned.

It is not true, however, that the
claim and the award of the hearing officer were predicated solely upon
the thesis that claimant’s illness had been aggravated by her employment. In
her complaint she alleges that her work involved “exerting heavy pressure
of efforts in operating her machines, lifting and pushing heavy objects”;
that “aside from being strenuous,” said work “had been performed
under conditions conducive to the development and aggravation of tuberculosis,
such as the inhalation of excessive cotton dust; continuous night work
services; frequent exposure to sudden changes of temperature; close contact
with workers and employees suffering from active pulmonary tuberculosis;”
that when she entered the services of the NDC, “she was free from any sign
of pulmonary tuberculosis”; that it was only in the middle part of 1950
when she begun to feel back and chest pains, suffered continuous chronic
coughing, loss of weight and appetite;” and that “in the latter part
of 1950 her sickness was confirmed to be that of pulmonary tuberculosis, when
she was X-rayed at the instance” of the NDC” and thereafter she was
treated for said p.t.b. by said” NDC.

Taken as a whole, the complaint did
not rely solely, not even primarily, upon “aggravation” of claimant’s
illness. The allegations about the seemingly good condition of her health when
she began working for the NDC in 1947, and the emphasis laid upon the strenuous
nature of her work and the conditions under which the same had to be
undertaken, when considered in relation to the averment that they were
conducive to the “development and aggravation of pulmonary
tuberculosis,” are sufficient to warrant the conclusion what she claimed
that her illness was a result of the nature of her employment as well as that
the conditions thereof had aggravated her condition.

Similarly, the decision of the
hearing officer taken in its entirety likewise relies upon both grounds
in awarding for the claimant. In effect, he held that the nature of her
employment and the conditions under which she worked had caused her to contract
pulmonary tuberculosis in 1950, and that the fact’ that she was allowed to work
thereafter under the same conditions, despite the NDC’s
knowledge of her illness, had led to the aggravation thereof in 1951. Hence, in
passing upon the petition for review of the NDC, Associate Commissioner Perez
did not exceed his authority in affirming substantially said decision of the
hearing officer.

Moreover, upon a review of the
record we are satisfied that said conclusion is supported by substantial
evidence and that in fact the impairment of claimant’s health was a consequence
of the nature of her employment and of the conditions under which she had to
work.

Wherefore, the decision appealed from should
be as it is hereby affirmed, with costs against the petitioner. It is so ordered.

Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Paredes, Regala and Makalintal, JJ., concur.