G.R. No. L-43811 May 31, 1978
Cayetano Francisco, petitioner, vs. The Workmen’s Compensation Commission and/or The Honorable Secretary of Labor and Republic of the Philippines (National Irrigation Administration), respondents.

FACTS

Cayetano Francisco was employed as a ditchtender by the National Irrigation Administration (NIA) for 26 years. His duties involved manual labor, cleaning ditches and canals while exposed to dust. On August 1, 1974, he was medically examined and found to be suffering from pulmonary tuberculosis. He gave oral notice of his sickness to the NIA on November 16, 1974, and stopped working on December 1, 1974. He subsequently filed a claim for disability compensation benefits.
The Workmen’s Compensation Section initially dismissed his claim. On review, the respondent Commission reversed the dismissal but awarded Francisco only permanent partial disability benefits under Section 18 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, amounting to P794.98. Dissatisfied, Francisco elevated the case to the Supreme Court, contending he was entitled to permanent total disability benefits under Section 15 of the Act, amounting to P6,000.00, as his illness rendered him totally and permanently disabled for any work.

ISSUE

Whether petitioner Cayetano Francisco is entitled to permanent total disability compensation under Section 15 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act.

RULING

Yes, the petitioner is entitled to permanent total disability compensation. The Supreme Court modified the Commission’s decision, awarding the maximum benefit of P6,000.00 under Section 15 of the Act. The legal logic rests on two key points: the sufficiency of evidence establishing permanent total disability and the failure of the employer to properly controvert the claim.
First, the Physician’s Report of Sickness constituted substantial evidence, establishing not only the compensability of the illness—linking it to constant exposure to dust and overwork—but also its permanent and total character. The report explicitly stated the sickness caused “total disability for labor for an indefinite period,” that Francisco could not resume his former occupation or do any other kind of work, and resulted in “permanent total disability for labor.” This finding was corroborated by an x-ray report. The respondent employer, the Republic through the NIA, submitted no evidence to rebut this.
Second, the Republic’s defense of lack of jurisdiction due to alleged improper service—claiming the Solicitor General was not notified—was rejected. The Court cited Dinaro vs. WCC and Republic and a pertinent Memorandum Circular, which held that the duty to controvert claims against the government devolves upon the heads of the concerned agencies, like the NIA. The government’s failure to controvert within the statutory period, attributable to the NIA’s inaction, results in a waiver of its right to contest the claim and an admission of its compensability. Since the claim was uncontroverted and the evidence clearly showed permanent total disability, the award under Section 15 was justified.