G.R. No. L-32300, L-42824, L-43211, L-43872, L-44849. January 31, 1978.
PILLSBURY MINDANAO FLOUR MILLING CO., INC., et al. vs. FELIX MURILLO, et al.; DIONISIO R. SORIANO vs. WCC, et al.; PEDRO HORTIZUELA vs. WCC, et al.; AQUILINO R. MAICO vs. REPUBLIC, et al.; PERPETUA F. YAP vs. WCC, et al.

FACTS

These are five consolidated workmen’s compensation cases. In L-32300, the Workmen’s Compensation Commission affirmed a referee’s award for Felix Murillo, a mechanic suffering from pulmonary ailments, finding his employer failed to seasonably controvert the claim. In the four other cases (L-42824, L-43211, L-43872, L-44849), the Commission reversed the referees’ awards in favor of the claimants. The claimants were public school teachers and a postal employee who suffered from various ailments (rheumatoid arthritis, bronchial asthma, psoriasis, hypertensive vascular disease) leading to their disability and, in three cases, optional retirement. The Commission reversed on grounds such as alleged lack of causal relation between the ailment and work, the theory that optional retirement benefits precluded compensation, or lack of shown disability.

ISSUE

The central issue is whether the Workmen’s Compensation Commission erred in reversing the awards for the four public sector claimants by disregarding the statutory presumption of compensability and other established jurisprudential principles under the Workmen’s Compensation Act.

RULING

The Court affirmed the award in L-32300 and reinstated the referees’ awards in the four other cases. The legal logic is anchored on the controlling presumption under Section 44 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act. When an illness supervenes during employment, it is presumed to have arisen out of or been aggravated by such employment. This presumption shifts the burden of proof to the employer to disprove the claim by substantial evidence. The Commission’s reversals erroneously placed the burden on the employees. Furthermore, the employer’s failure to seasonably controvert a claim constitutes a waiver of non-jurisdictional defenses, including the defense of non-compensability. For the cases involving optional retirement, the Court applied the principle from Gomez vs. WCC: approval of optional retirement under applicable government circulars is an indication the employee was physically incapacitated to render further efficient service. Thus, optional retirement does not negate compensable disability. For the medical reimbursement claim (L-43872), the factual finding of disability was supported by evidence. Accordingly, the awards were reinstated, with attorney’s fees increased to 10% in the three teacher cases as provided by law.