GR 43575; (July, 1978) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-43575. July 31, 1978.
MARCIANO LAMCO, petitioner, vs. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION and ALVARO J. BARRETO ENTERPRISES, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Marciano Lamco was employed as a furniture designer-production supervisor by respondent Alvaro J. Barreto Enterprises. On December 5, 1974, while so employed, he suffered a stroke diagnosed as “Cerebral Infarction, Right” and was hospitalized. Upon recovery, he sought to resume work but was refused by the respondent firm on the ground that work pressure might cause a recurrence of his illness. Lamco filed a claim for disability benefits under the Workmen’s Compensation Act.
The respondent firm opposed the claim, asserting there was no employer-employee relationship at the time of the illness because Lamco had allegedly resigned effective November 9, 1974. The Acting Referee awarded compensation benefits to Lamco. However, the Workmen’s Compensation Commission reversed this decision, dismissing the claim solely on the ground of lack of employer-employee relationship.
ISSUE
Whether the Workmen’s Compensation Commission erred in dismissing the claim based on the alleged lack of employer-employee relationship at the time of the illness.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court reversed the Commission’s decision and reinstated the award. The legal logic proceeds from two key principles of workmen’s compensation law. First, the Court clarified that the employer’s defense of non-existent employer-employee relationship was raised for the first time on appeal to the Commission. Under the rules, such a factual issue is deemed waived if not contested before the Regional Office. The respondent’s failure to timely dispute this relationship constituted a tacit admission.
Second, and more substantively, the Court applied the presumption of compensability under Section 44 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act. The law presumes that a claim is compensable if the illness supervened during employment. The burden shifts to the employer to rebut this presumption by substantial evidence, proving either that the illness did not arise from employment or was attributable to a deliberate act of the employee. The respondent firm presented no evidence to overcome this presumption. The fact that the employer refused to rehire Lamco due to fears his work would aggravate his condition was deemed a clear admission that the illness was work-related or at least aggravated by the employment. Consequently, the claim was compensable, and the Commission’s dismissal was erroneous.