G.R. No. L-28819 June 23, 1970
PIONEER CERAMICS, INC., petitioner, vs. ELISEO O. SAMIA and THE WORKMEN’S COMPENSMENT COMMISSION, respondents.

FACTS

The claimant, Eliseo O. Samia, was employed as a plant mechanic (foreman) by Pioneer Ceramics, Inc. from 1956 until October 8, 1965, when he stopped reporting for work. On June 10, 1966, he filed a notice of injury or sickness and claim for compensation with Regional Office No. 4 of the Department of Labor, stating he contracted pulmonary tuberculosis due to the nature of his work and that he notified the company’s general manager on October 8, 1965. The Regional Office transmitted the claim to the employer on June 30, 1966, with forms to be accomplished. The employer received these forms on July 20, 1966, but did not return them. However, on July 7, 1966, the company sent a letter to the Regional Office controverting the claim on the ground that the illness was not work-connected. The company alleged it sent this letter based on a rumor and that it only learned of the claim when the claimant personally appeared on July 27, 1966, after which it filed an “Employer’s Report” on July 29, 1966, though the record does not show receipt. Evidence showed that as early as December 3, 1965, the Social Security System informed the company of the claimant’s application for sickness allowances for confinement from October 8 to November 27, 1965, and the company advanced and was later reimbursed for these allowances. On September 7, 1966, the Acting Chief Referee issued a compensation award, considering the claim uncontroverted due to the untimely controversion. The award was based on a physician’s report stating the illness was directly caused by probable exposure to dust in the factory. The company moved for reconsideration. A hearing was set for July 25, 1967, where the claimant testified about his work involving physical effort and exposure to heat and dust. The Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner affirmed the award on August 3, 1967. The Commission en banc denied the company’s petition for review.

ISSUE

1. Whether the petitioner filed a timely controversion of the claim pursuant to Section 45 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act.
2. Whether the respondent’s notice of injury or sickness filed on June 10, 1966, was out of time and whether it constituted a claim for compensation.
3. Whether the physician’s report was admissible as evidence.
4. Whether the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner erred in allowing the claimant to present additional evidence at the hearing.

RULING

1. The petitioner did not file a timely controversion. Under Section 45, an employer must file a notice of controversion on or before the fourteenth day of disability or within ten days after knowledge of the alleged accident. The Court found that the petitioner had knowledge of the claimant’s illness at least by December 3, 1965, as evidenced by the SSS letter. Therefore, the letter of July 7, 1966, was filed beyond the statutory period. The claim was correctly considered uncontroverted. The Court rejected the petitioner’s argument that Section 45 applies only to accidents, not sickness, as Section 39 explicitly includes sickness within the term “injury or personal injuries.”
2. The respondent’s notice filed on June 10, 1966, was not barred. The form used was entitled “Notice of Injury or Sickness and Claim for Compensation” and contained details constituting a claim. Moreover, the failure to file within the time prescribed by Section 24 is non-jurisdictional and does not bar the claim if the employer fails to controvert, as in this case.
3. The physician’s report was admissible. While it may be hearsay under common law, Section 49 of the Act allows its admission. Additionally, the claimant’s sworn testimony at the hearing about the nature of his work provided substantial evidence to support the award that the disease was directly caused or at least aggravated by his employment.
4. The Commissioner did not err in allowing additional evidence. Section 49 authorizes the Commissioner, upon review, to take or order the taking of additional testimony. The hearing held was in accordance with this provision.
The decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission was affirmed.