G.R. No. L-43204. July 31, 1978.
RODITO T. SARIL, et al., petitioners, vs. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION AND REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES (Bureau of Public Schools), respondents.

FACTS

Mila Luz T. Saril, a public school teacher, died on March 27, 1971, from “internal hemorrhage secondary to acute enterocolitis” while six months pregnant. Her surviving husband, Rodito Saril, promptly notified the District Supervisor and filed a death compensation claim. The Solicitor General entered a “tentative controversion” on July 7, 1971, questioning the work-connection of the ailment but failed to file a formal controversion. Subsequently, the Hearing Officer issued multiple orders directing the employer, represented by the Provincial Fiscal, to submit its evidence. Despite extensions and a final 30-day notice, the employer failed to present any evidence. Consequently, based solely on the claimant’s evidence, the Referee awarded compensation.
The employer moved to set aside the award, alleging non-receipt of orders, which the Referee denied. The Workmen’s Compensation Commission en banc reversed the award. It ruled that even presuming non-controversion, the claim lacked merit. The Commission relied on a statement in the claimant’s own physician’s report that the illness had no causal relation to employment, reasoning that enterocolitis is typically caused by contaminated food or water, not teaching duties.

ISSUE

Whether the Workmen’s Compensation Commission erred in setting aside the award and denying the claim for death benefits.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court reinstated the Referee’s award. The legal logic proceeds from two established principles under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. First, the employer’s right to controvert was forfeited. The “tentative controversion” was ineffective as it was not followed by a formal controversion as required by law. More critically, the employer, despite repeated opportunities over nearly four years, failed to present any countervailing evidence. This failure constituted a waiver of its defenses and a renunciation of its right to challenge the claim.
Second, the presumption of compensability applies. When an illness supervenes during employment, it is presumed to have arisen out of or been aggravated by such employment. This presumption is jurisprudentially entrenched. The Commission’s duty was to disprove this presumption by substantial evidence, not mere conjecture. Its theory that the ailment was caused by external factors like contaminated food was speculative and insufficient to overthrow the legal presumption. The negative answer in the physician’s report, being part of the claimant’s evidence, is inconclusive against the presumption. The employer’s complete failure to adduce evidence left the presumption uncontroverted and conclusive. Therefore, the Commission’s decision was reversed for being contrary to law and jurisprudence.