G.R. No. L-43348 September 29, 1976
Isias Pros, petitioner, vs. Workmen’s Compensation Commission and Republic of the Philippines (Bureau of Telecommunications), respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Isias Pros was employed as a telephone lineman by the respondent Bureau of Telecommunications starting July 1951. In the course of his employment, he suffered a series of strokes: the first in June 1965, diagnosed as hypertension; a second in August 1965; a third in December 1966; and a fourth in February 1973. His attending physician, Dr. Jose Llanto, attributed these ailments to his prolonged exposure to the elements as a lineman and declared him permanently and totally disabled from labor, advising his retirement. Pros retired in November 1973 and subsequently filed a claim for disability compensation benefits under the Workmen’s Compensation Act.
The respondent employer failed to controvert the claim. During ex-parte proceedings, the Acting Referee required Pros to be examined by the Compensation Rating Medical Officer, Dr. Francisco Dayak, whose report concluded a negative finding on disability. Pros’s counsel requested a hearing to cross-examine Dr. Dayak on his report, but this request was denied. Relying solely on this medical report, the Acting Referee dismissed the claim, a decision affirmed by the respondent Workmen’s Compensation Commission.

ISSUE

The main issue is whether petitioner’s illness (hypertension and resulting strokes) is compensable under the Workmen’s Compensation Act.

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the Commission’s decision and granted the claim. The legal logic is anchored on the statutory presumption of compensability and the employer’s failure to discharge its consequent burden. The Court held that once an illness supervenes during employment, as Pros’s strokes did while he was a lineman, a rebuttable presumption arises that the illness arose out of or was aggravated by such employment. The burden to overthrow this presumption by substantial evidence shifts to the employer.
Here, the respondent employer failed to meet this burden. It did not even controvert the claim, which failure is, by legal mandate, fatal to any defense and constructively an admission of compensability. The Court found the evidence of the claimant—detailing four work-related strokes and supported by his physician’s testimony linking his hypertension to his job conditions—to be more credible and weighty than the negative report of the Compensation Rating Medical Officer, especially since the claimant was denied the opportunity to test that report through cross-examination. Consequently, Pros was entitled to permanent total disability compensation of P6,000.00 and reimbursement of medical expenses amounting to P1,500.00.