G.R. No. L-43404. February 28, 1977.
ILUMINADO G. SOLITE, petitioner, vs. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION and REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES (Bureau of Telecommunications), respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Iluminado G. Solite was employed as a Radio Operator by the Bureau of Telecommunications. In 1969, he was diagnosed with “rheumatoid arthritis with accompanying Neuritis, Anemia, secondary.” He applied for sick leave from October to December 1974 and subsequently retired on December 31, 1974, at age 57, after nearly 22 years of service. On January 29, 1975, he filed a claim for disability compensation. The respondent Republic, through the Bureau of Telecommunications, failed to controvert the claim.
Consequently, the Acting Referee awarded disability benefits to Solite on September 29, 1975. The Office of the Solicitor General received a copy of this decision on October 17, 1975. On November 19, 1975, citing heavy workload and pressure, the Solicitor General filed a petition to elevate the records for relief from judgment, claiming failure to act within the period for a motion for reconsideration. The Workmen’s Compensation Commission granted the petition and, on January 28, 1976, rendered a new decision disallowing Solite’s claim.

ISSUE

Whether the Workmen’s Compensation Commission erred in granting the petition for relief from judgment and subsequently reversing the final and executory award in favor of the petitioner.

RULING

Yes, the Commission committed reversible error. The Supreme Court reinstated the award. The legal logic centers on the finality of the Referee’s decision due to the employer’s failure to properly controvert. The respondent’s petition for relief was grounded on excusable negligence due to workload. However, the Court found that the employer, the Bureau of Telecommunications, had received notice of the illness and claim. The duty to controvert devolved upon the head of the concerned bureau or office under relevant memoranda. The Solicitor General’s role is to represent the government when a claim is controverted by the employing office. Here, the Bureau did not controvert; thus, routing the claim to the Solicitor General was not a jurisdictional prerequisite for the Regional Office’s decision to be valid.
The Court clarified that while a Workmen’s Compensation Commission circular required sending a copy of the claim to the Solicitor General, failure to do so did not invalidate the Regional Office’s decision. Such a failure could only subject the responsible officer to administrative action but could not prejudice the claimant, who has no control over the official. To rule otherwise would undermine the protective objectives of the Workmen’s Compensation Act. Consequently, the employer’s failure to controvert constituted a waiver of non-jurisdictional defenses, and the presumption of compensability of an illness arising in the course of employment remained in the petitioner’s favor. The Court also noted that forced retirement due to a disabling illness contracted during employment entitles the employee to compensation benefits.