G.R. No. L-11504; May 23, 1958
ELISEO SAULOG, petitioner-appellant, vs. N. BAENS DEL ROSARIO, Acting Commissioner of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission and SERGIO MONTOYA, respondents-appellees.

FACTS

Sergio Montoya worked as a conductor for the Saulog Transit, owned and operated by Eliseo Saulog, in 1949 and 1950. Around the end of February 1950, he began experiencing chest pains and spitting blood, leading to his hospitalization from April to November 1950. Due to his physical condition, he resigned in May 1950. On September 12, 1952, he filed a Notice of Injury or Sickness and Claim for Compensation with the Workmen’s Compensation Commission. The Commission awarded compensation in favor of Montoya. Saulog appealed, contending that: (a) the notice and claim were not filed within the two-month period required by law; (b) the Commissioner’s factual findings disregarded those of the referee; (c) the award was excessive; and (d) any liability should be enforced against the Saulog Transit Co., a corporation to which he sold the business on October 24, 1951, before Montoya filed his claim.

ISSUE

1. Whether the notice of injury and claim for compensation were filed within the prescribed period.
2. Whether a verbal notice and a belated written claim are sufficient under the Workmen’s Compensation Act.
3. Whether the employer suffered prejudice from any delay in notice.
4. Whether liability for compensation should be borne by the new corporate owner, Saulog Transit Co.
5. Whether the award of compensation, including future medical services, was proper.

RULING

1. On the timeliness of notice and claim: The two-month period under Section 24 of the Act did not begin to run from the date of the accidental chest bump in January 1950, as Montoya experienced no immediate consequences and continued working. The period commenced when the disease manifested and he realized he was sick, around the end of February 1950. Verbal notice was given to the employer’s assistant manager and the owner’s wife prior to or on April 1, 1950, which was within two months. The claim, filed on September 12, 1952, was also deemed timely as the injury initially seemed minor and the claim was submitted after the seriousness became apparent.
2. On the sufficiency of verbal notice and belated claim: Under Section 27 of the Act, a notice is not invalid due to any incorrectness or omission unless the employer was actually misinformed. A verbal notice or a belated notice is acceptable if the employer or his agent had knowledge of the injury or sickness, and the employer did not suffer prejudice from the delay. Here, the employer’s agents (Medina and Mrs. Saulog) had knowledge, and the employer did not demonstrate actual prejudice.
3. On prejudice to the employer: The appellant’s claim that he suffered prejudice because he could not include the liability in the sale to the corporation was rejected. Any such inclusion would have merely reduced the purchase price accordingly. Furthermore, as the appellant owned about 99% of the corporation, the issue was deemed academic.
4. On liability of the new corporate owner: The liability remained with Eliseo Saulog, the employer at the time of the injury. There was no proof that the sale of the business included this specific liability, and any transfer agreement could not affect Montoya’s rights without his consent.
5. On the propriety of the award: The award for medical and hospitalization expenses already incurred (reduced to P2,200.00) and for total disability compensation (P3,000.00 for 208 weeks) was affirmed as it complied with the Act. However, the portion of the award requiring Saulog to furnish future medical and hospital services was erroneous, as Montoya had already resigned from service before the proceedings.
The award of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission was affirmed, except for the requirement to provide future medical services. Costs were imposed on the petitioner-appellant.