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

Villareal versus Workmen's Compensation Commission

The Case

This is a petition for review brought by Paterno Villareal against the Workmen's Compensation Commission and the City of Caloocan, Health Department. Villareal sought compensation for pulmonary tuberculosis, which he claimed arose from and was aggravated by his work as a laborer. The Commission had dismissed his claim and absolved the City of Caloocan from liability. The case matters because it settles two questions every compensation practitioner must know: when the prescriptive period for a compensation claim begins to run, and what happens when an employer fails to controvert a claim within the reglementary period.

Procedural History

Villareal filed his Notice of Injury or Sickness and Claim for Compensation with Regional Office Number Four of the Department of Labor in Manila. The City of Caloocan, Health Department, did not controvert the claim within the reglementary period. After hearing, the Acting Referee of Regional Office Number Four dismissed the claim for insufficiency of evidence. Villareal moved for reconsideration, and that motion was denied. The case was then elevated to the Workmen's Compensation Commission, which affirmed the Acting Referee and absolved the City of Caloocan from any liability. Villareal came to the Supreme Court by petition for review of that Commission decision.

Facts

Paterno Villareal worked as a laborer for the City of Caloocan, Health Department. According to his Notice of Injury or Sickness and Claim for Compensation, his pulmonary tuberculosis supervened on January 18, 1969, during his employment. He retired from the service on July 5, 1970 because of illness.

On August 2, 1971, Villareal filed his claim for compensation with Regional Office Number Four of the Department of Labor in Manila, based on the work-connected disease of pulmonary tuberculosis, which allegedly incapacitated him for labor. The City of Caloocan, Health Department, did not controvert the claim within the reglementary period.

Villareal died on August 12, 1974. The cause of death was recorded as cardio respiratory failure and pulmonary tuberculosis with emaciation. The Commission, on review, affirmed the dismissal of the claim, and the matter reached the Supreme Court.

Issues

• Whether or not the illness of Paterno Villareal, pulmonary tuberculosis, is compensable.
• Whether or not the claim was filed out of time and had therefore prescribed.
• Whether or not the failure of the City of Caloocan to controvert the claim barred it from raising defenses.

Applicable Provisions

Section 24 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, as amended, fixes the period for controverting a claim, and the Court's discussion turns on the effect of a late or absent controversion:

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.

This provision bears on the case because the Court held that the two-month period is not jurisdictional and that the claim itself prescribes only in ten years.

Article 1144, paragraph 2, of the Civil Code supplies the ten-year prescriptive period for obligations created by statute:

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.

This provision bears on the case because compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act is a liability vested by statute, and so it prescribes in ten years.

Section 44 of the Workmen's Compensation Act creates a disputable presumption of compensability, as the Court explains:

Section 44, Workmen's Compensation Act

This provision bears on the case because, the illness having supervened during employment, the claim is presumed compensable and the burden shifts to the employer.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the pulmonary tuberculosis of Villareal is compensable. Tuberculosis is not an instantaneous disease; it is an imperceptible disease that is breathed in and feeds on the lungs, and 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 resistance to latent tuberculosis infection. The causal connection between the claimant's ailment and the nature of his employment as laborer is easily discernible. His illness supervened in the course of such employment and was directly caused or aggravated by it or was the result of it.

On the second issue, the Court held that the claim had not prescribed. The contention that the claim was filed out of time is not meritorious. The statutory right to compensation prescribes in ten years, and that period commences from the time the employee is disabled to pursue his occupation by reason of illness. Villareal's illness supervened on January 18, 1969, and he retired because of illness on July 5, 1970; his claim filed on August 2, 1971 was well within the ten-year period.

On the third issue, the Court held that by failing to controvert the claim, the City of Caloocan waived all defenses except lack of jurisdiction. Moreover, because the pulmonary tuberculosis supervened during his employment, there is a disputable presumption that the claim is compensable. The claimant is relieved of the duty to prove causation, and the burden of proof is shifted to the employer to show that the sickness is not compensable.

Doctrine

A Bar candidate should retain these rules. First, the statutory right to compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act is a liability vested by statute and prescribes in ten years under Article 1144, paragraph 2, of the Civil Code. Second, that ten-year period commences from the time the employee is disabled to pursue his occupation by reason of illness, not from the onset of the illness itself. Third, the two-month period under Section 24 of the Workmen's Compensation Act is not jurisdictional, and a late filing of the notice is not fatal to the claim. Fourth, an employer that fails to controvert a claim within the reglementary period waives all defenses except lack of jurisdiction. Fifth, where the illness supervened during employment, Section 44 of the Workmen's Compensation Act raises a disputable presumption of compensability, relieving the claimant of proving causation and shifting the burden to the employer.

Disposition

The Court set aside the decision of the Workmen's Compensation Commission and ordered the City of Caloocan, Health Department, to pay the heirs of Paterno Villareal six thousand pesos as disability benefit, six hundred pesos as attorney's fees, and sixty-one pesos as administrative fee to the successor of the Workmen's Compensation Commission.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing is that the ten-year prescriptive period for a compensation claim runs from the employee's disability to pursue his occupation by reason of illness, and that failure to controvert waives all defenses except lack of jurisdiction. Examiners like to use this case on the commencement of the prescriptive period and on the effect of a failure to controvert a workmen's compensation claim.