G.R. No. L-41603 September 28, 1984
Primitiva Vda. de Galindo, et al. vs. Workmen’s Compensation Commission and Philippine Packing Corporation

FACTS

The late Proculo Galindo worked as a field laborer for respondent Philippine Packing Corporation from 1949 until his death on August 24, 1971, due to cancer of the liver. His widow and minor children filed a claim for death compensation benefits. The respondent company had knowledge of Galindo’s illness on July 31, 1971, the date of his confinement. The Workmen’s Compensation Unit awarded benefits, ruling the claim was not controverted timely. The company argued it filed a notice of controversion on September 1, 1971, which was within the period from the date of death.
The Workmen’s Compensation Commission reversed the award, absolving the company from liability. The Commission held that for a death claim, the period to controvert runs from knowledge of the death, not the disability, making the September 1 filing timely. It also ruled that cancer of the liver is not an occupational disease. Petitioners sought review, arguing the company failed to timely controvert from its knowledge of the illness.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent employer timely controverted the compensation claim, and whether the illness is compensable.

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the Commission and reinstated the award. On the issue of controversion, the Court applied Section 45 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, which requires an employer to file a notice of controversion either on or before the fourteenth day of disability or within ten days after knowledge of the accident or sickness. The employer acquired knowledge of the sickness on July 31, 1971. Even assuming the controversion was filed on September 1, 1971, this was 32 days from such knowledge, well beyond the ten-day reglementary period. The liability of the employer attached from the date of illness or knowledge thereof, and the subsequent death of the employee does not extend the period to controvert. The failure to timely controvert constitutes a renunciation of the right to challenge the claim, making the claim compensable.
On the issue of compensability, the Court held that while cancer of the liver is not an occupational disease, it may be deemed work-connected. The illness supervened during Galindo’s 22 years of employment. A rebuttable presumption exists that the illness arose out of or was aggravated by the employment. The company presented no evidence to rebut this presumption. Therefore, the award of death benefits was proper.