GR 41612; (June, 1976) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-41612. June 30, 1976.
ROLANDO FLORES, petitioner, vs. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION and THE LIBERTY MANUFACTURING CORPORATION, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Rolando Flores was employed by respondent Liberty Manufacturing Corporation as an assembler and later as a purchaser. On May 23, 1973, Dr. Brigido Legaspi diagnosed him with moderately to far advanced pulmonary tuberculosis. His work attendance subsequently became irregular. On October 29, 1973, Flores tendered his resignation effective October 31, 1973, receiving P1,500.00. On May 31, 1974, he filed a claim for compensation benefits under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. The Acting Labor Referee awarded him compensation, but the respondent Commission reversed this decision, denying the claim on the ground that his resignation was voluntary and that the evidence of illness and its work-connection was insufficient.
ISSUE
The core issue is whether the petitioner is entitled to disability compensation benefits despite his resignation, considering the alleged insufficiency of the medical evidence and the voluntary nature of his separation from employment.
RULING
The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversing the Commission’s decision and reinstating the Labor Referee’s award. The legal logic proceeds from the presumption of compensability established under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. Once an illness supervenes during employment, it is presumed to be work-related or aggravated by the employment. The burden shifts to the employer to rebut this presumption. Here, the Commission erred in discrediting the Physician’s Report. The report indicated treatment began on May 23, 1973, and explicitly stated the illness was “aggravated by the employment” in response to a specific item. The diagnosis of advanced PTB logically implied an X-ray examination. The employer failed to present substantial evidence to overthrow the presumption. Regarding resignation, the Court found the petitioner’s sworn statement—that his absences were due to illness from May to October 1973—unrebutted. His physical incapacity, not a voluntary desire to leave, compelled his resignation. Therefore, his cessation of work was due to disability, not a voluntary severance. The acceptance of separation pay did not constitute a waiver of compensation rights. Consequently, the illness, having arisen during employment and resulting in disability, was compensable.