G.R. No. L-42828 February 28, 1977
VICTORIA D. DESPE, petitioner, vs. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION and REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES (Bureau of Public Schools), respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Victoria D. Despe was employed as a public school teacher starting in 1930. In 1967, she began suffering from swelling and pain in her wrist joints and sinusitis, diagnosed as Frontal Sinusitis and Rheumatoid Arthritis. Her condition progressively worsened, leading to hospitalization in 1972. Due to the recurring nature of her illnesses, she applied for and was granted optional retirement at age 61 on September 30, 1973. Two weeks after retiring, she filed a compensation claim supported by a physician’s report certifying her ailments and a 60% loss of use of both hands, which advised her retirement. The respondent employer, the Bureau of Public Schools, did not controvert this claim within the statutory period.
The Workmen’s Compensation Unit initially denied her claim based on a later examination by a Compensation Rating Medical Officer who found no disability. Upon petitioner’s motion, a Regional Office referee reversed this, awarding disability and medical benefits. The employer filed a motion for reconsideration, leading the referee to elevate the entire record to the Workmen’s Compensation Commission for review. The Commission subsequently denied the disability benefits, relying primarily on the petitioner’s service record—which showed no recent sick leave—and the medical officer’s finding of no disability.

ISSUE

Whether the Workmen’s Compensation Commission erred in denying petitioner’s claim for disability compensation benefits.

RULING

Yes, the Commission committed reversible error. The employer’s failure to controvert the claim within the statutory period constituted a renunciation of its right to challenge the claim and a waiver of all non-jurisdictional defenses, including the argument that the illness was not work-connected. This legal principle is well-settled. Consequently, the employer was precluded from disputing compensability.
Even assuming the claim was properly contested, the Commission’s basis for denial was legally insufficient. Relying solely on the absence of sick leave in the service record immediately before retirement does not conclusively prove the absence of disability. The approval of her optional retirement under applicable laws and circulars, which required a finding of physical incapacity to render efficient service, strongly indicates the presence of a disabling condition. Furthermore, the illnesses manifested and aggravated during her long employment as a teacher. Section 44 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act establishes a presumption that an illness arising or aggravated during employment is compensable. This presumption shifts the burden of proof to the employer to present substantial evidence to the contrary. The employer failed to rebut this presumption. Therefore, the Commission’s decision was reversed, and the award of compensation benefits by the Regional Office was reinstated.