G.R. No. L-20171 June 29, 1965
MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY, petitioner, vs. DANIEL PEREZ and THE WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, respondents.

FACTS

Claimant Daniel Perez was employed by the Manila Railroad Company starting September 1, 1939, eventually becoming a second class assistant conductor. His duties included attending to passenger tickets, helping with luggage, and sometimes giving signals. His work schedule varied, sometimes starting at 3:00 a.m. or 3:00 p.m. The records show he spat blood in 1940, 1943, and 1945, and received artificial pneumothorax treatments in 1944 and 1946. Fluoroscopic examinations from 1948 to 1950 indicated his pulmonary tuberculosis progressed from “moderately advanced” to “far advanced.” He was dismissed in 1944 due to prolonged absence from tuberculosis but was rehired in 1946. In October 1950, he met with an accident. Upon the advice of his superior, Chief Conductor Silva, due to his poor health from serious pulmonary tuberculosis, Perez applied for retirement, effective January 1, 1951. On September 6, 1960, Perez filed a claim for compensation, which was initially dismissed by a Chief Hearing Officer who found the illness was not contracted in the course of employment and its aggravation was due to natural development. The Workmen’s Compensation Commission reversed this decision, awarding Perez P3,000 as compensation, P1,900 for medical expenses, P225 as attorney’s fees, and P36 to the Workmen’s Compensation Fund. The Commission en banc upheld this decision upon reconsideration.

ISSUE

1. Whether Perez’s illness was aggravated by the nature of his employment.
2. Whether disability from aggravation occurring before the effectivity of Republic Act No. 772 (June 20, 1952) is compensable.
3. Whether the evidence supports the amounts awarded.
4. Whether the claim was filed beyond the two-month period under Section 24 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, affecting jurisdiction.
5. Whether the claim had prescribed.

RULING

1. Yes. The Court agreed with the Commission that Perez’s pre-existing tuberculosis was aggravated by the nature of his employment. The records showed his condition worsened over time during his employment.
2. Yes. The employer’s liability for compensation due to aggravation of a pre-existing illness exists even under the original Workmen’s Compensation Act (No. 3428), as held in Blue Bar Coconut Company, et al. vs. Joaquin Boo. The amendment by Republic Act No. 772, which explicitly mentioned tuberculosis and aggravation, did not change this import. Furthermore, this defense was not raised before the Commission and was thus deemed waived.
3. The sufficiency of evidence for the amounts awarded is a question of fact not reviewable on appeal by certiorari.
4. The failure to file the claim within the two-month period does not affect the Commission’s jurisdiction to entertain the claim, as established in Victorias Milling Co. vs. WCC. This defense was also not raised in the Commission and was waived.
5. The claim had not prescribed. Compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act is a liability created by statute, prescribing in ten years under Article 1144(2) of the Civil Code, and the period had not expired when Perez filed his claim. The defense of prescription was not raised in the Commission and was waived.
The decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission was affirmed.