G.R. No. L-21796; August 29, 1966
National Development Company, petitioner, vs. Workmen’s Compensation Commission and Potenciano Peralta, respondents.

FACTS

Potenciano Peralta was first hired as a benchman by the National Development Company (Nadeco) in 1947. In 1952, he suffered a hypertensive stroke “on account of his working near a boiler,” after which, at his request, he was transferred to work as a field salesman. On July 1, 1957, he became Assistant Chief, Sales and Market Division, in charge of the retail store. In this position, he performed daily overtime services from 5 p.m. to 8 p.m. to prepare daily sales reports. On March 30, 1958, he collapsed while helping lift a 500-lb. bale of cloth in the store. He was confined first at the Family Clinic and then transferred to the Far Eastern University Hospital on April 6, 1958, where his ailment was diagnosed as “Cerebral thrombosis, secondary to arteriosclerosis.” He was discharged on April 14, 1958. Nadeco shouldered one-half of his hospital bill (P300.00). Unable to continue working due to this ailment, he was retired from service on November 30, 1958. Peralta filed a claim for disability benefits on May 29, 1961. The Workmen’s Compensation Commission ordered Nadeco to pay Peralta P4,000.00 as disability benefit, P450.00 for medical expenses, P150.00 for hospital expenses, P300.00 as counsel fees, and to pay the Commission P41.00 as an administration fee. Nadeco filed a petition for certiorari to review this decision.

ISSUE

1. Whether notice of injury and claim for compensation were made within the statutory period.
2. Whether Potenciano Peralta is entitled to compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act for his hypertension and subsequent cerebral thrombosis.
3. Whether the Workmen’s Compensation Commission has the authority to grant attorney’s fees.

RULING

1. Yes, the notice of injury and claim for compensation were deemed sufficient and timely. The Court ruled that notice was superfluous because Nadeco had actual knowledge of Peralta’s ailment, having transferred him due to his 1952 stroke, knew of his collapse, paid half of his hospital bill, and retired him because of his sickness. Furthermore, the partial payment of the hospital bill by Nadeco amounted to a partial payment of its pecuniary liability, which rendered a formal claim dispensable and deemed Nadeco to have waived its right to contest compensability.
2. Yes, Peralta is entitled to compensation. The Court applied Section 2 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, which covers illnesses “aggravated by or the result of the nature of such employment.” Medical testimony established that Peralta’s hypertensive ailment was aggravated by the nature of his work with Nadeco—his first stroke in 1952 occurred while working near a boiler, and his condition was exacerbated by continuous overtime services, strenuous efforts, and working in a hot place, culminating in a second stroke on March 30, 1958, while lifting a heavy bale of cloth.
3. Yes, the Workmen’s Compensation Commission has the authority to grant attorney’s fees. The Court cited established jurisprudence and Article 2208(8) of the Civil Code, which allows a grant of attorney’s fees “[i]n actions for indemnity under workmen’s compensation and employer’s liability laws.”
The judgment of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission was affirmed in its entirety. Costs were awarded against the petitioner, Nadeco.