G.R. No. L-30258 November 29, 1971
ALATCO TRANSPORTATION, INC., petitioner, vs. THE WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION and PIO ROSALES, deceased, substituted by MARIA DE ROSALES, CARMEN ROSALES, ANTONIO ROSALES, CORAZON ROSALES and LOURDES ROSALES, respondents.

FACTS

Pio Rosales was employed as a bus driver by Alatco Transportation, Inc. from 1949 to 1964. He was initially found healthy upon pre-employment examination. On October 15, 1964, he filed a claim for compensation, alleging he contracted pulmonary tuberculosis due to the strain and fatigue of his continuous work. The petitioner’s own company physician, in a report accompanying the claim, attributed the illness to the nature of his work and recommended a desk assignment. The petitioner filed a report disclaiming knowledge of the incident. A referee awarded compensation to Rosales, a decision affirmed by the Workmen’s Compensation Commission (WCC). The petitioner sought reconsideration, arguing the illness was not work-connected and that Rosales was no longer suffering from active tuberculosis when he filed his claim. The Commission en banc denied the motion. Rosales died of a different illness during the pendency of the appeal, and his heirs were substituted as respondents.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the claimant’s pulmonary tuberculosis is compensable under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, having arisen out of or been aggravated by the nature of his employment.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the compensability of the illness but modified the awarded amounts. The legal logic rests on the presumption of compensability established by Section 44 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act. Once an illness supervenes during employment, it is presumed to have arisen out of or been aggravated by such employment. The burden to rebut this presumption by substantial evidence shifts to the employer. The Court found that Alatco failed to discharge this burden. The Commission’s factual findings, which noted the illness’s direct link to the strenuous duties of driving and its recurrence when on duty, were supported by substantial evidence, including the petitioner’s own physician’s report. The Court emphasized that the WCC’s factual conclusions are binding unless shown to lack evidentiary support, a showing not made here. The petitioner’s argument that the tuberculosis was arrested was irrelevant, as the law covers aggravation of a pre-existing condition. The claim’s validity was not extinguished by the claimant’s subsequent death from a different cause. However, the Court recalculated the disability compensation based on the claimant’s correct average weekly wage, reducing the total award to P1,820. It also ordered reimbursement for medical expenses incurred from October 1, 1964, and payment of corresponding attorney’s fees and administrative costs.