GR 42471; (August, 1978) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-42471 August 22, 1978
FRANCO C. ESPIRITU, petitioner, vs. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION and THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Franco C. Espiritu was employed by the Department of Health as a Dental Aide. His duties involved manual labor, including transporting heavy dental equipment for rural service. On January 10, 1967, he discovered a small, hard mass on his neck. After complaining to his supervising dentist in 1969, he underwent surgery. The mass recurred, leading to two more operations in 1972 and 1974. A biopsy confirmed the mass was malignant (Carcinoma, Thyroid). The Bohol Medical Center director advised his retirement due to his changed voice and the recurrence. Espiritu retired on February 11, 1975.
He filed a compensation claim on January 14, 1975. In its Employer’s Report, the Department of Health expressly stated it would not controvert the claim and acknowledged the illness occurred in the “regular occupation.” Despite this non-controversion and the government’s failure to appear at the hearing to present evidence, the Labor Hearing Officer dismissed the claim for “lack of merit.” The Workmen’s Compensation Commission affirmed this dismissal.
ISSUE
Whether the Workmen’s Compensation Commission gravely abused its discretion in dismissing the claim despite the employer’s non-controversion and lack of contrary evidence.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court reversed the Commission’s decision. The legal logic is anchored on the established doctrine regarding non-controversion under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. The employer’s express statement of non-controversion in its report and its failure to appear at the hearing constituted a waiver of non-jurisdictional defenses and an admission of the claim’s compensability. The Court emphasized that failure to controvert results in the loss of defenses like non-compensability and even the defense of filing the claim beyond the two-month period, as the prescriptive period is ten years under the Civil Code.
The Court strongly admonished the Commission for its stated policy that non-controversion alone, without substantial evidence, does not justify an award. This policy was deemed patently inconsistent with settled jurisprudence and a defiance of the Court’s doctrinal pronouncements. The Commission, as the administering arm of this social legislation, must adhere to the principle of liberal construction in favor of labor. Furthermore, the nature of Espiritu’s illness, linked to the physical strain of his duties, and the physician’s report confirming his permanent incapacity for his former work, substantiated the claim’s merit. The Court awarded him maximum disability benefits, attorney’s fees, and an administrative fee.