PATERNO VILLAREAL, PETITIONER, VS. THE WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION AND CITY OF CALOOCAN (HEALTH DEPARTMENT), RESPONDENTS.

This is a petition for
review of the decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission in R04-WC Case
No. 126196 entitled “Paterno Villareal,
Claimant, versus, City of Caloocan, Respondent”
affirming the order of the Acting Referee of Workmen’s Compensation Unit,
Regional Office No. 4, Manila, dismissing the claim and absolving the City of Caloocan (Health Department) from any liability.^[1]

On August 2, 1971 Paterno Villareal filed with
Regional Office No. 4, of the
Department of Labor, Manila, a Notice of Injury or Sickness and Claim for
Compensation based on his work-connected disease of pulmonary tuberculosis
which allegedly incapacited him for labor against the
City of Caloocan (Health Department).^[2]

The respondent, City of Caloocan (Health Department), did not controvert the
claim within the reglementary period.^[3]

After hearing, the Acting
Referee of Regional Office No. 4 dismissed the claim for insufficiency of
evidence.

The claimant, Paterno Villareal, filed a motion
for reconsideration dated January 2, 1976.^[4] Said motion was denied and the case was
elevated to the Workmen’s Compensation Commission which affirmed the decision
of the Acting Referee and absolved the City of Caloocan (Health Department) from any liability.^[5]

The only issue is whether
or not the illness of Paterno Villareal
of pulmonary tuberculosis is
compensable.

The record shows that Paterno Villareal retired as
laborer from the City of Caloocan (Health Department) on July 5,
1970 because of
illness.  According to the Notice of
Injury or Sickness and Claim for Compensation, his illness of pulmonary
tuberculosis supervened on January 18, 1969 during the employment of Paterno
Villareal in the City of Caloocan (Health Department).  Therefore, the contention that the claim for
compensation was filed out of time is not meritorious because:

“Private respondent’s stance that petitioner’s claim has
prescribed is without merit.  In Romero
v. Workmen’s Compensation and Republic of the Philippines
(Bureau of Public Schools), No.
L-42617, June 30, 1977, 77 SCRA 482, 487, We ruled as without merit the Solicitor
General’s contention that the filing by claimant of notice for compensation
beyond the reglementary
period of two months as provided by Section 24 of the Workmen’s Compensation
Act, as amended, was fatal to the success of the claim; that said defense is
not jurisdictional; and that the statutory right to compensation prescribes in
ten (10) years.  Citing the Romero case, We reiterated in Cañonero
v. Workmen’s Compensation Commission and Republic of the Philippines (Bureau of Public Schools), No. L-43880,
February 28, 1978, 81 SCRA 713,
720, that the contention of respondent
employer that the filing of the claim for compensation only after the lapse of
more than seven (7) years from the time of disability or illness in violation
of Section 24 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, as amended, was fatal to its
success is, likewise, without merit.  It
must be underscored that pursuant to Article 1144 (2) of the Civil Code, the compensation under the
Workmen’s Compensation Act is a liability
vested by statute which prescribes in 10 years.

“When does the 10-year statutory period to file a compensation
claim under the Workmen’s Compensation Act commence?  This question was resolved in Superior
Concrete Products, Inc. v. WCC and Carmelito Benoza, No. L-42020, March 31, 1978, 82 SCRA 270, 278,
wherein We ruled that the ten-year prescriptive period for compensation cases
commences from the time the employee is disabled to pursue his occupation by
reason of illness.  Thus, We enunciated:

‘The claim for compensation benefits filed by private respondent Benoza has not prescribed. 
Petitioner asserts that inasmuch as the claimant alleges that he became
sick with pulmonary tuberculosis in February of 1963, the claim for compensation
has long prescribed and the employee is guilty of laches
since the latter filed the claim for the first time only in April of 1971.

‘Although the herein claimant became ill in February of 1963,
however, it was only in March of 1967 when he became disabled from work, and
inasmuch as it is the employee’s disability to pursue his occupation by reason
of illness which entitles him to
compensation, Benoza’s cause of action accrued only
in March of 1967, consequently, the filing of his claim in April of 1961, was
well within the ten-year prescriptive period for compensation cases of this
nature.'”^[6]

The allegation of the respondent, City of Caloocan (Health Department), that
there was no showing that the claimant was suffering from pulmonary tuberculosis
when he was separated from the service is flimsy and weak.  Tuberculosis is not an instantaneous
disease.  It is an imperceptible disease
that is breathed in and feeds on the lungs. 
Its incipient stage may not readily be discovered.  Exposure to dust and dirt is a predisposing
cause of tuberculosis and tends to produce fibrosis of the lungs which weakens
the resistance to any latent tuberculosis infection.  The causal connection between the claimant’s
ailment and the nature of his employment as laborer is easily discernible.  It is apparent that his illness supervened in
the course of such employment and was directly caused or either aggravated by
or was the result of such employment.

By failing to controvert
the claim, the respondent, City of Caloocan (Health Department), waived all defenses,
except lack of jurisdiction, available to it.^[7]

Moreover, the pulmonary
tuberculosis of Paterno Villareal
supervened during his employment with the City of Caloocan (Health Department).  Hence, there is a disputable presumption that
the claim is compensable.^[8] The claimant is relieved of the duty to
prove causation as it is then
legally presumed that the illness arose out of the employment.  The burden of proof is shifted to the
employer to show that the sickness is not compensable.^[9]

It appears that Paterno Villareal died on August
12, 1974.  The cause of death
was “Cardio Resp. Failure, PTB Emaciation”.^[10]

In view of the nature of the illness of Paterno
Villareal, his heirs are entitled to the maximum
disability benefit of P6,000.00.

WHEREFORE, the decision of the Workmen’s Compensation
Commission sought to be reviewed is hereby set aside and the City of Caloocan (Health Department) is
ordered:

1)     
To pay the heirs of Paterno
Villareal the amount of Six Thousand Pesos
(P6,000.00) as disability benefit;

2)     
To pay the heirs of Paterno
Villareal the sum of Six Hundred Pesos (P600.00) as
attorney’s fees; and

3)      To
pay the successor of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission the amount of
Sixty-one Pesos (P61.00) as administrative fee.

SO ORDERED.

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

^[1]
Annex “D-1”, Rollo, pp. 18-19.

^[2]
Annex “A”, Rollo, p. 15.

^[3]
Annex “C”, Rollo, pp. 15-16.

^[4]
Ibid.

^[5]
Annex “D-1”, Rollo, pp. 18-19.

^[6]
Leonardo vs. Workmen’s
Compensation Commission, 88 SCRA 58, 63-64.

^[7]
Consolacion Bautista vs.
Workmen’s Compensation Commission, et al., 88 SCRA 121.

^[8]
Section 44, Workmen’s Compensation Act; Justiniano
vs. Workmen’s Compensation Commission, 18 SCRA 677.

^[9]
Balanga vs.
Workmen’s Compensation Commission, et al., 83 SCRA 721.

^[10]
Annex “B”, Rollo, p. 14.