GR 43009; (August, 1976) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-43009 August 31, 1976
VICENTE S. LAUDE, petitioner, vs. CINE MODERNA and/or ANITA GUANSON, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Vicente S. Laude was employed as a janitor by respondent Cine Moderna. In 1973, he was diagnosed with pulmonary tuberculosis (minimal) and peptic ulcer. He subsequently filed a claim for compensation benefits under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. In support, he submitted a Physician’s Report diagnosing his ailment and a later x-ray result from July 1974 that was “suggestive of PTB minimal probably active.” The respondent employer failed to controvert this claim within the statutory period.
The Acting Referee issued an award in favor of Laude. However, the Workmen’s Compensation Commission reversed this award and dismissed the claim. The Commission held the Physician’s Report was insufficient without contemporaneous x-ray support. The employer also argued the claim was barred by prescription and that the employment relationship had terminated when the theater burned down in April 1973, before the claim was filed.
ISSUE
The primary issue is whether the petitioner’s illness is compensable under the Workmen’s Compensation Act despite the employer’s defenses of non-controversion, prescription, and severance of employment.
RULING
The Supreme Court reversed the Commission’s decision and reinstated the Acting Referee’s award. The legal logic is anchored on statutory presumptions and procedural defaults under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. First, under Section 44 of the Act, once an illness supervenes during employment, it is presumed to be work-related or at least aggravated by the employment. This creates a rebuttable presumption in favor of the employee, shifting the burden of proof to the employer to show the illness is not compensable. Here, the employer presented no substantial evidence to rebut this presumption.
Second, the employer’s failure to controvert the claim within the 14-day period prescribed by law constituted a waiver of all defenses, including non-compensability. The Court found no record that the employer’s right to controvert was ever formally reinstated by the Commission, as required by its own rules. Third, the defense of prescription was unavailing because the employer, having lost its right to controvert, could not raise it. Finally, the mere destruction of the employer’s property (the theater fire) does not automatically terminate the employer-employee relationship for compensation purposes, especially where, as here, the illness had already supervened during the employment. Consequently, the claim was deemed compensable.