G.R. No. L-31759 November 29, 1972
DELGADO BROTHERS, INC., petitioner, vs. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION and ESPERIDIONA VDA. DE FERNANDEZ for herself and for her minor son, RUBEN FERNANDEZ, respondents.

FACTS

Ignacio Fernandez, employed as a rigger by Delgado Brothers, Inc., complained of dizziness on September 17, 1967, while lashing concrete products at work. He was relieved and sent home, where he collapsed and was taken to the hospital. He died the next day from a cerebro-vascular hemorrhage. His widow, Esperidiona Vda. de Fernandez, filed a notice and claim for compensation on behalf of herself and their minor son. The employer, through its insurance carrier, filed an Employer’s Report of Accident or Sickness which controverted the claim without stating a reason. The Acting Chief Referee of the Workmen’s Compensation Section issued an award in favor of the claimants, finding the death compensable based on the data in the employer’s own report. The Workmen’s Compensation Commission and its Chairman affirmed the award.
Petitioner Delgado Brothers, Inc., appealed, arguing the award was issued summarily despite a timely controversion. In its motion for reconsideration before the Commission, petitioner specifically contended that its Employer’s Report did not contain the admissions cited in the award and that there was no proof the claimants were dependents of the deceased.

ISSUE

Whether the Workmen’s Compensation Commission erred in affirming the award of death benefits to the heirs of Ignacio Fernandez.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the Commission’s decision. The legal logic rests on the application of presumptions under the Workmen’s Compensation Act and the insufficiency of the employer’s controversion. First, an illness or injury sustained in the course of employment is presumed to arise out of or be due to the employment. The facts established Fernandez became ill while performing his duties, triggering this presumption. Petitioner presented no evidence whatsoever to rebut this presumption.
Second, the Court found petitioner’s specific grounds for reconsideration to be without merit. The Employer’s Report explicitly contained admissions confirming the illness occurred during work (he “felt dizziness” while “lashing concrete products”), the place and time of the incident, the nature of the injury (cerebro-vascular hemorrhage), and even listed the dependents, including the claimants. Thus, the report itself substantiated the claim. Furthermore, petitioner never sought to present evidence that the death was not service-connected, nor did it challenge the finding in the award that the physician’s report admitted the cerebral hemorrhage resulted from the nature of the work. A mere pro forma controversion without a stated reason or subsequent proof is insufficient to defeat a claim supported by the employer’s own report and the statutory presumption of compensability. The award was therefore proper.