GR 41816; (October, 1976) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-41816 October 29, 1976
DOMINGO VALLO, petitioner, vs. THE WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION and THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Domingo Vallo, an elementary school teacher in San Carlos City, Pangasinan, filed a claim for compensation on April 19, 1974, accompanied by a physician’s report from Dr. Juan C. Lomibao dated March 15, 1974. The report attested that Vallo was suffering from pulmonary tuberculosis incurred since November 15, 1973, which incapacitated him for work and required indefinite treatment. The Hearing Officer dismissed the claim, initially citing prescription due to late filing and the claimant’s lack of interest. The Workmen’s Compensation Commission, on review, affirmed the dismissal but on different grounds, holding that the physician’s report alone, without corroborating X-ray or laboratory findings, was insufficient to constitute substantial evidence of the illness.
ISSUE
Whether the Workmen’s Compensation Commission erred in dismissing Domingo Vallo’s claim for compensation based on the alleged insufficiency of medical evidence.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court set aside the Commission’s decision and awarded compensation. The legal logic is anchored on three established doctrines under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. First, the presumption of compensability applies. When an illness, like tuberculosis, supervenes during employment, it is presumed to have arisen out of or been aggravated by such employment. This presumption, rooted in the Act’s social justice purpose, can only be overturned by substantial evidence to the contrary, which the employer failed to present. The physician’s report from a duly licensed practitioner is sufficient under Section 49 of the Act, and an X-ray report is not an indispensable prerequisite.
Second, the employer, the Republic through the Bureau of Public Schools, failed to controvert the claim within the statutory period. This failure results in a waiver of all non-jurisdictional defenses, including any challenge to the evidence, and constitutes an admission of compensability. Notice was given on January 3, 1974, and the absence of a timely controversion is fatal to the employer’s position.
Third, the defense of prescription raised by the Solicitor General is without merit. The Court has consistently ruled that failure to controvert a claim within the mandated period precludes the employer from raising the defense of late filing. Consequently, the Court ordered the respondent Republic to pay Domingo Vallo the maximum compensation of Six Thousand Pesos (P6,000.00) plus attorney’s fees.