FELIXBERTO VILLONES, PETITIONER, VS. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION, GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM (DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND CULTURE), RESPONDENTS.

This is a petition for review of the decision of the Employees’
Compensation Commission affirming the decision of the GSIS Medicare ½
Employees’ Compensation, which denied the claim of herein petitioner for income
benefits in connection with the death of his son, the late Rolando M. Villones.

The records show that the late Rolando M. Villones
was employed as a secondary school teacher in the Department of Education and
Culture assigned at Dayhagan
Barrio High School
in Bongabon, Oriental Mindoro,
from July 3, 1972 up to the
time of his death on September 2, 1975
with a basic salary of P347.60 per month, plus P50.00 monthly allowance.  He died of pulmonary tuberculosis.  On December 23, 1975, the deceased’s father
and herein petitioner, filed with the Government Service Insurance System, in
the prescribed form, a claim for income benefits for the death of his son under
the provision of Presidential Decree No. 626, attaching thereto a xerox copy of the decedent’s death certificate (see pages 1
& 4 of ECC Case No. 0137).  On
February 4, 1976, additional documents were submitted to the GSIS consisting
of:  (a) a medical certificate showing
that deceased Rolando M. Villones was on sick leave
of absence from December 4 to 20, 1972 due to influenza; (b) a medical certificate
issued by Dr. Fernando B. Viloria, Municipal Health
Officer of Bongabon, Oriental Mindoro
certifying that he examined Rolando M. Villones on
July 19, 1972 and found him to be physically and mentally fit for employment;
and (c) a certification from the principal of Bongabon
(South District), Oriental Mindoro to the effect that
the actual duties of the deceased as secondary school teacher “were
teaching secondary school subjects specifically the following:  chemistry, science, history, and English.  He also led students in some curricular work
like green revolution projects, youth civic programs, and the like.  Aside from these, he also
did community work like helping in the organization of puroks
and barangay youth clubs” (pp. 5, 6 and 8, ECC rec.).

On March 9,
1976, the GSIS
Medicare-Employees’ Compensation denied the claim on the ground that “the
cause of your son’s death, Pulmonary Tuberculosis, although listed as an
occupational disease, has failed to satisfy other conditions in order to be
compensable”, stating further that:

“For Tuberculosis and its resulting disability or death to be
compensable, the employee manifesting this disease should have an occupation
involving close and frequent contact with a source or sources of tuberculosis
infection by reason of employment:  (a)
In the medical treatment or nursing of a person or persons suffering from
tuberculosis, (b) As a laboratory worker, pathologist or post-mortem worker,
where occupation involves working with material which is a source of tuberculous infection. 
The nature of your son’s duties as a Teacher as well
as the working conditions of his employment did not expose him to the source or
sources of tuberculous infection afore­mentioned”
(p. 7, ECC rec.).

After petitioner’s request for reconsideration of the denial of
his claim was denied on June 10, 1976
by the GSIS Medicare-Employees’ Compensation, the entire record of the case was
elevated on September 2, 1976
to the Employees’ Compensation Commission for review in accordance with the law
and rules (pp. 12-15, ECC rec.).

On February 17, 1977,
the Employees’ Compensation Commission (En Banc) rendered its decision
affirming the earlier denial made by the GSIS Medicare-Employees’ Compensation
of herein petitioner’s claim for income benefits, pertinent portions thereof
read as follows:

“Pulmonary Tuberculosis having been ruled out as an
occupational disease in the occupation in which the deceased was engaged in,
appellant is repudiating pulmonary tuberculosis as the cause of death.  Appellant insisted that the Municipal Health
Officer might have erred in indicating in the Death Certificate that his son
died of Pulmonary Tuberculosis, there being no autopsy conducted.  In other words, appellant would like to make
it appear that hemoptysis which was the only visible
sign immediately before the teacher’s death, could have been due to other
illness traceable to employment and not necessarily as a result of Pulmonary
Tuberculosis.

“Be this as it may, a research has been made on the possible
causes of hemoptysis. 
Medical studies show that blood-streaked sputum or gross bleeding coming
from the respiratory tract may be caused by: 
(1) inflammable – inflam­matory causes are those of tuberculosis,
extending in severity from the smallest amount to death from rapid exsanguination. 
Other common causes, mild or profuse, are bronchiectasis
bronchitis, lung abscess or pneumonia; (2) Neoplastic-bronchogenic
carcinoma or bronchial adenoma; (3) Vascular-mitral stenosis and pulmonary infarct, are the most frequent conditions
associated with pulmonary hemorrhage. 
Other casues are left ventricular failure arteriovenous mal-formations, etc.; (4) Traumatic – such as
foreign body or lung contusion; and (5) Hemorrhagic -Hemorrhagic diathesis or
anti-coagulant therapy.  (Principles of Internal Medicines by Harrison).  All of the above causes of hemoptysis are neither related in any way to the nature of
the duties of the deceased as a teacher, nor to his working conditions.

“As correctly ruled by the GSIS, the nature
and conditions of the deceased’s employment could have just aggravated his
physical condition.  Aggravation
of a pre-existing illness is,
however, no longer compensable under the present Employees’ Compensation
Program” (pp. 17-19, ECC rec. in ECC Case No. 0137).

WE find the petition meritorious.

In the case before US, it
is undisputed that petitioner’s son, the late Rolando M. Villones,
who was employed on July 3, 1972 as a secondary public school teacher in Dayhagan Barrio High School in Bongabon,
Oriental Mindoro, died on September 2, 1975, which
was a working day.  The cause of his
death, according to the municipal health officer of Bongabon,
Dr. Fernando B. Viloria, was PTB, hemoptysis
(p. 2, ECC rec.).

The records reveal that
the deceased, prior to his employment as a teacher, was physically and mentally
fit to perform his duties (p. 5, ECC rec.). 
While employed as such teacher, he went on sick leave from December
4 to 20, 1972 (16
days).  Dr. Fernando B. Viloria, who was his attending physician, diagnosed his
sickness as “influenza” (p. 6, ECC rec.).  Considering, however, the limited medical
facilities in municipal health centers, it is possible that what was diagnosed
as influenza was actually pulmonary tuberculosis in its incipient stage,
which may not be easily detected by physical examination but by extensive
x-ray.  In the case of Batangas Transportation Co. vs. Perez and WCC (11 SCRA 793
[1964]) WE stated that:  “x x x Tuberculosis is not an
instantaneous disease, it is an imperceptible germ disease that feeds on the
lungs whose presence in the body cannot be easily discerned and its
incipient stage may not be readily discovered” (see also Bautista vs.
WCC, L-43027, January 31, 1979; Lorenzo vs. WCC, 85 SCRA 440, 441 [1978],
underscoring supplied).

By the very nature of tuberculosis, the deceased could not have
instantly acquired such illness on September
2, 1975 and died as a result of that on the same day.  And the observation of petitioner’s counsel
that “pulmonary tuberculosis does not belong to that category of sickness
which is instantaneously fatal to its victim upon contracting thereof, but
takes months, if not years, before the person afflicted dies” is realistic
as it is confirmed by several com­pensation cases that reached this Court (p.
5, Petition for Review, p. 11, rec.). 
Thus, in the case of Manila Railroad Company vs. Ferrer
& WCC (109 Phil. 716 [1960]), the employee was found to be afflicted with a
moderately advanced PTB on November 19, 1953 but he was able to continue
working until a few months before he died of said illness on January 27, 1958,
or a period of more than four (4) years from the time he contracted the
disease.  In Vda. de Calado vs. WCC (38
SCRA 567 [1971]), the employee was diagnosed to be suffering from advanced PTB
on December 18, 1959 and died two and a half (2 ½) years later on June
4, 1962.  In Lambino
vs. Del Rosario (6 SCRA 1017 [1962]), the employee was found to be afflicted
with a far advanced PTB in April, 1952 but he was able to work briefly up to
the time of his death, by reason of said illness, on May 7, 1953, or after thirteen
(13) months.  In another case, the
employee was treated for pulmonary tuberculosis from December, 1952 until he
died of said illness on January 23,
1954 or thirteen (13) months later (National Development
Company vs. WCC, 19 SCRA 861 [1967]).  And in Manila Railroad Company vs. Vda. de
Chavez (12 SCRA 142 [1964]), the employee was confined in the hospital from
November 22 to December 2, 1956 for PTB, after which he was able to work
briefly only to be confined again, and he died of the aforesaid illness on
August 10, 1957 or nine (9) months later.

Considering, therefore,
the undisputed nature of the deceased’s employment as certified by the
principal of Bongabon (South District); and in addition,
the fact that he had plenty of homework to do after his regular working hours
such as preparing the lesson plans for the next day’s classes, correcting test
papers and making various school reports and in doing all these, he would
usually stay up late at night; that with a meager monthly pay of P397.60, with
his parents, a sister, and two (2) brothers depending on him for support, he
could barely afford to buy and eat good food; and that as such teacher, it
becomes inevitable for him to be in constant contact with students and other
types of people who may be afflicted with PTB, which is a highly com­municable disease, it is not
surprising that he should contract tuberculosis, so that from December 4 to 20,
1972, only five (5) months after he was employed as a teacher, he was forced to
go on sick leave by reason of the aforestated
illness.  When he was able to resume
work, he was again exposed to the same working conditions thus aggravating his
illness until he suddenly died on September 2, 1975 of severe hemoptysis
due to PTB as certified by Dr. Fernando B. Viloria.

It has been clearly shown
that the deceased did not only engage in teaching such academic subjects as
chemistry, science, history and English but he was also assigned to such
co-curricular courses like green revolution projects, youth civic action
programs (YCAP), and in such other community works as helping organize purok
and barangay
youth clubs.

And as noted in the
decision of the Employees’ Compensation Commission, one of the causes of hemoptysis – a condition which includes both
blood-streaked sputum or gross bleeding coming from the respiratory
tract – is tuberculosis, extending in severity from the smallest amount to
death from rapid exsanguination (pp. 17-19, ECC
rec.).

Likewise, in her findings
submitted to the Employees’ Compensation Commission, Dr. Mercia
C. Abrenica, a medical officer of the Employees’
Compensation Commission, stated that of the inflam­matory causes of hemoptysis, tuberculosis is still the major cause, and that
while PTB is the most probable diagnosis in the instant case, it can be
considered occupational only when the occupation involves exposure to source or
sources of tuberculosis infection (p. 10, ECC rec.).

Consequently, in the instant case, the cause of action accrued as
early as December 4, 1972
when the late Rolando Villones contracted his illness
and continued to run until September 2,
1975 when he died by reason
thereof; hence, the cause of action accrued before the effectivity
of the New Labor Code.  And WE ruled in Corales vs. ECC, et al. (L-44063, February 27, 1979) that
the governing law in the prosecution of the cause of action which accrued prior
to the effectivity of a new law on the same subject matter, shall be the law in force at the time of the accrual
of said cause of action.  Since the
Workmen’s Compensation Act was then in full force and effect, then it should
govern in the case at bar.  It is based
on the principle that

“Rights accrued and vested while a statute was in force
ordinarily survive its repeal.

“The repeal of a statute does not operate to impair or
otherwise affect rights which have been vested or accrued while the statute was
in force.  This rule is applicable alike
to rights acquired under contracts and to rights of action to recover damages
for torts.  Where a new statute continues
in force provisions of an old statute, although in form it repeals them at the
moment of its passage, a right of action created by the old statute is not
thereby destroyed x x x”
(82 CJS 1010).

It must be pointed out that as early as December 4 to 20, 1972,
the deceased Villones was already entitled to
disability benefits under Section 14 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, as amended, because his illness
prevented him from reporting to his work for more than three (3) days; and
under such a situation, his employer (Department of Education and Culture) was
obligated under Section 37 of the same Act to file a notice of illness with the Workmen’s Compensation
Commission and to manifest its intention of whether or not to controvert his
right to compensation.  There is no
showing that respondent employer has complied with its duty under Sections 37
and 45 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, as amended, of filing with the Workmen’s
Compensation Commission a notice of the initial illness of its employee,
Rolando Villones, as well as his subsequent death on
September 2, 1975, and of controverting the
right to compensation within the prescribed period of fourteen (14) days from
the occurrence of the disability or death, or within ten (10) days from
knowledge thereof.

It cannot be denied that
respondent employer had knowledge of the illness of the deceased Villones because he applied for sick leave from December
4 to 20, 1972 which
presumably was acted upon by his principal and/or supervisor, they being
his immediate superiors (Gallemit vs. Republic, 75
SCRA 382, 383, 385, 386 [1977]). 
Likewise, respondent employer had knowledge of the subsequent death of
Rolando Villones on September 2, 1975 because he died on a regular working
day; hence, the fact of death could not have escaped the notice or knowledge of
the principal and/or super­visor.  Such
knowledge of the illness and death of Rolando Villones
by the principal and/or supervisor, being agents of the respondent employer, is
deemed in law as knowledge of the respondent employer, which is sufficient to
charge it with its duty under Sections 37 and 45 of the Workmen’s Compensation
Act, as amended (Gallemit vs. Republic, supra;
MRR vs. WCC, 10 SCRA 41 [1964]; MRR vs. Vda. de Oliveros, 2 SCRA 665 [1961]).  WE have repeatedly ruled that failure to comply with said sections
constitutes a renunciation of the employer’s right to controvert the claim,
resulting in the waiver of all its non-jurisdictional defenses, such as the non-compensability
of the claim (Paraiso vs. Castelo-Sotto,
85 SCRA 419 [1978]; Republic vs. WCC, 85 SCRA 107 [1978]; Lamco
vs. WCC, 84 SCRA 401 [1978], and Cañonero vs. WCC, 81
SCRA 712 [1978]).

Moreover, this Court, in
consistently holding that the disease of tuberculosis is an occupational disease
or work-connected in such occupations as that of a teacher, laborer, driver,
land inspector and such other occupations, hence compensable, aptly stated and
WE quote:  “Medical science has it
that tuberculosis as an ailment is latent in man regardless of his age,
sex and occupation.  When given favorable
conditions, this disease becomes active and prominent.  Some of these favorable conditions are:  too much physical exertion without the
corresponding rest; exposure to excessive heat and cold; lack of good food as
to weaken the body constituents and contact with people suffering from
tuberculosis x x x” (Corales vs. ECC, supra).

It is heartening to note that the ECC, in its Resolutions Nos.
233 and 432, respectively dated March 16, 1977 and July 20, 1977, adopted a
more compassionate construction of the otherwise restrictive provisions of the
new Labor Code (PD No. 442, as amended by PD Nos. 570-A, 626, 643, 823, 849,
850, 865-A, 891, 928, 1389) by including in the list of compensable ailments
and diseases, cardiovascular disease which comprehends myocardial infarction,
pneumonia and bronchial asthma (Sepulveda vs. ECC, et al., L-46290, Aug. 25,
1978).

Finally, the grant of compensation benefits to herein petitioner will
not be impaired even if he (petitioner himself) entertains doubts as to the
real cause of the death of his son when he stated that no autopsy was made nor
was there anybody who actually examined the deceased prior to or after his
death.  At any rate, as aforestated,
pulmonary tuberculosis is concededly one of the causes of hemoptysis.  Even unexplained deaths, the occasion and
circumstances of which are unknown or undetermined, are usually deemed
compensable, as long as there is some basis in the facts for inferring a
work-connection, a causal relation between the death and the employment (Mulingtapang vs. WCC, 80 SCRA 610 [1977]; Castro vs. WCC,
75 SCRA 179 [1977]; ITEMCOP vs. Florzo, 16 SCRA 2104
[1966]).  And, in case of doubt in the
implementation and interpretation of the provisions of the Labor Code,
including its implementing rules and regulations, the same shall be resolved in
favor of the laborer (Art. 4, PD No. 442, as amended; Art. 1702, New Civil
Code).

WHEREFORE, THE DECISION OF RESPONDENT EMPLOYEES’
COMPENSATION COMMISSION IS HEREBY SET ASIDE AND THE GOVERNMENT SERVICE
INSURANCE SYSTEM IS HEREBY ORDERED

1.  TO PAY HEREIN PETITIONER THE SUM OF SIX
THOUSAND (P6,000.00) PESOS AS DEATH BENEFITS;

2.  TO REFUND PETITIONER’S MEDICAL AND HOSPITAL
EXPENSES DULY SUPPORTED BY PROPER RECEIPTS;

3.  TO PAY PETITIONER BURIAL EXPENSES IN THE
AMOUNT OF TWO HUNDRED (P200.00) PESOS;

4.  TO PAY PETITIONER SIX HUNDRED (P600.00) PESOS
AS ATTORNEY’S FEES; AND

5.  TO PAY ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS.

SO ORDERED.

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