GR 42490; (October, 1978) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-42490 October 30, 1978
PATRICIO VIRAY (substituted by his widow, Mrs. Lucita L. Viray), petitioner, vs. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION and CITY OF MANILA, respondents.
FACTS
Patricio Viray, employed as a toilet cleaner by the City of Manila for 36 years, retired on March 1, 1973, at age 54, under a law governing optional retirement for physical disability. He filed a workmen’s compensation claim on March 31, 1975, supported by medical certificates diagnosing him with Far Advanced, Active Pulmonary Tuberculosis (PTB). The Acting Referee awarded compensation, but the Workmen’s Compensation Commission reversed the decision, dismissing the claim. The Commission held the medical evidence, primarily an X-ray report from July 6, 1973, was insufficient to prove Viray suffered from PTB at the time he stopped working on February 28, 1973. The employer, the City of Manila, also argued the claim was filed beyond the statutory period.
ISSUE
Whether the Workmen’s Compensation Commission erred in dismissing Viray’s claim for compensation benefits due to his illness.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court reversed the Commission’s decision and reinstated the award. The legal logic proceeds from established presumptions and waiver principles under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. First, an illness that supervenes during employment is presumed compensable, and the burden shifts to the employer to disprove the causal link. Here, the City of Manila failed to present any substantial evidence to rebut this presumption. Second, the employer’s failure to timely and effectively controvert the claim, as required by Sections 37 and 45 of the Act, constituted a renunciation of its right to challenge the claim on non-jurisdictional grounds, including the issue of compensability. The controversion was filed only on July 3, 1975, long after it had knowledge of Viray’s condition through his sick leaves and retirement application.
Regarding the timing of the claim and the medical evidence, the Court ruled that delay in filing is not a jurisdictional bar, especially when the employer had knowledge and was not prejudiced. Furthermore, the approval of Viray’s optional retirement for physical disability itself substantiated the existence of a disabling condition at the time of his separation from service. The nature of his arduous and unsanitary work as a toilet cleaner for decades provided a reasonable basis for the illness’s work-connection. Consequently, the employer’s liability was established, and the claimant was entitled to maximum benefits.