NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, PETITIONER, VS. MAGDALENA AYSON AND THE WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, RESPONDENTS.

National Development Company versus Ayson

The Case

This is a petition brought by the National Development Company against Magdalena Ayson and the Workmen's Compensation Commission, asking the Supreme Court to set aside the compensation awarded to a former employee who was discharged on account of total disability for labor. The case matters because it gathers in one decision three recurring battlegrounds of workmen's compensation law: the two-month time bar and how an employer loses it, the causal link between illness and employment, and the presumption that an illness arising in the course of employment arose out of it. For the bar candidate, it is a compact review of the employer's procedural defaults and the employee's evidentiary advantages.

Procedural History

Magdalena Ayson filed her claim for disability compensation against the National Development Company in the Regional Office of the Department of Labor. After hearing, the Department's hearing officer rendered a decision granting the claim and ordering the company to pay compensation, medical expenses, attorney's fees, and fees for the proceedings. The company sought review with the Workmen's Compensation Commission, which affirmed the awards for compensation and medical expenses and increased the attorney's fees, adding fees for the Commission's fund. The company sought reconsideration, which the Commission en banc denied. The company then appealed to the Supreme Court, which decided the case in May 1967.

Facts

From 1947 to about six years thereafter, Magdalena Ayson was employed in the National Development Company. Her designation at the time of her discharge was spare weaver, at four pesos and forty-five centavos a day. On June 30, 1953, she was discharged on account of total disability for labor. No benefits were paid by the company except the medical treatment given by the company physician.

As of the early part of 1952, Ayson was still in good health. During the later part of that year, however, following an accident in the course of her employment, she began to spit blood whenever she exerted pressure. After medical examination, she was diagnosed as suffering from pulmonary tuberculosis. The company gave her free medical treatment, but she also engaged the services of a private doctor, had herself treated in the Quezon Institute, and incurred other medical expenses.

Alleging that her total disability is compensable under the Workmen's Compensation Act, Ayson filed her claim for disability compensation against the company in the Regional Office of the Department of Labor on February 27, 1961. The company answered, disclaiming liability and alleging that, at the time of her discharge, Ayson was sick of eczema, not of pulmonary tuberculosis, and that her work in the company was light and easy.

Issues

• Whether or not the claim is barred for having been filed outside the two-month period fixed by Section 24 of the Workmen's Compensation Act.
• Whether or not Ayson's illness arose out of and in the course of her employment, the company contending that her work was light and easy.
• Whether or not the full award of compensation for total disability, and the award for medical expenses, should stand.

Applicable Provisions

Section 24 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, Act Numbered 3428, fixes the period for filing a claim and is the provision the company invoked as a bar:

In case an employee suffers an injury or sickness for which compensation is claimed, notice of the injury or sickness and of the time, place and cause thereof shall be given to the employer within two months after the date of the injury or sickness, or as soon as practicable thereafter, and the claim for compensation shall be made within two months after the date of the injury or sickness or as soon as practicable thereafter.

The Court held that the company lost the benefit of this defense because it never filed an employer's report with notice of controversion, and that, in any event, the claimant substantially complied with the section.

Section 14 of the same Act governs compensation for total disability, and it is the basis of the principal award:

In case of total disability, the employer shall pay to the injured or sick employee a weekly compensation equivalent to sixty per centum of his average weekly wages, but not less than fifteen pesos nor more than forty pesos per week, and shall continue to pay the same during the entire period of such disability.

The Court sustained the full award under this section because there was no proof that Ayson's total disability had ceased.

Section 13 of the same Act governs medical expenses, and it supports the separate award for treatment:

The employer shall furnish the injured or sick employee such medical, surgical and hospital services and supplies as the nature of his injury or sickness may require.

The Court found the amount granted reasonable, considering that the claimant was treated by a private doctor.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held the time limitation unmeritorious. The company never filed an employer's report with notice of controversion, and this omission resulted in its renunciation and waiver of the defense that the claim is barred for being filed outside the two-month period. Besides, the claimant substantially complied with Section 24 by requesting financial benefits from the company's Acting General Manager within a week from the receipt of her discharge letter, and such request amounts to an advanced filing of the claim.

On the second issue, the Court rejected the contention that the illness was not due to the employment. The record showed that the claimant frequently worked in the night shift and that, before she developed pulmonary tuberculosis, her work included pushing heavy wagons of cloth. Substantial evidence therefore showed that her illness was caused by her employment. At any rate, there was no rebutting evidence to the contrary, so the presumption stood that an illness arising in the course of the employment arose out of it.

On the third issue, the Court found no proof that Ayson's total disability had ceased, so full compensation for the same was warranted. The grant for medical expenses was reasonable, considering that the claimant was treated by a private doctor. The rest of the award was not questioned as to amount.

Doctrine

An employer who fails to file an employer's report with notice of controversion renounces and waives the defense that the claim was filed outside the two-month period fixed by Section 24 of the Workmen's Compensation Act. A request for financial benefits addressed to the employer within a week from receipt of the discharge letter amounts to an advanced filing of the claim and is substantial compliance with that section.

An illness arising in the course of employment is presumed to have arisen out of it, and the presumption stands where there is no rebutting evidence. Substantial evidence that the employee's work, including night shifts and pushing heavy wagons of cloth, preceded the onset of pulmonary tuberculosis suffices to establish that the illness was caused by the employment.

Full compensation for total disability under Section 14 is warranted where there is no proof that the disability has ceased, and reasonable medical expenses under Section 13 may be awarded where the employee was treated by a private doctor.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision and resolution of the Workmen's Compensation Commission in favor of Magdalena Ayson, with costs against the National Development Company.

Remember This

Memorize this line: no employer's report with notice of controversion means waiver of the time-bar defense, and an illness arising in the course of employment is presumed to have arisen out of it. Examiners use this case on the Section 24 two-month period, on the employer's procedural defaults, and on the presumption of work-connection in illness claims.