G.R. No. L-43690 September 30, 1978
SANCHO SEBASTIAN, petitioner, vs. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION and PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT OF SULU (Provincial Waterworks), respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Sancho Sebastian was employed as a property clerk by the Provincial Waterworks of Sulu. On May 15, 1973, he suffered from hypertension and arteriosclerotic heart disease. He subsequently applied for and was granted sick leave with pay, followed by an extended period where he utilized accumulated vacation and sick leave credits. He eventually retired on January 18, 1974, at age 62. On February 3, 1975, Sebastian filed a claim for compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, asserting his illnesses were work-connected. The Acting Chief of the Workmen’s Compensation Unit in Zamboanga City found the claim compensable, awarding benefits for permanent partial disability based on medical evaluation.
The Provincial Government of Sulu appealed to the Workmen’s Compensation Commission (WCC). The WCC reversed the award, absolving the employer of liability. The Commission reasoned that while the physician’s report indicated a work connection, the claimant himself failed to present substantial evidence detailing how his specific job duties as a property clerk led to the development of his illnesses.

ISSUE

Whether the Workmen’s Compensation Commission erred in reversing the award of compensation benefits to the petitioner.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission and reinstated the award. The legal logic centers on the application of the disputable presumption of compensability under Section 44 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act. The Court clarified that this presumption arises upon the establishment of a preliminary link between the illness and the employment, which is satisfied when the illness supervenes during the period of employment. Here, Sebastian’s illnesses manifested on May 15, 1973, while he was on an approved leave with pay. Citing Vda. de Ucang vs. Workmen’s Compensation Commission, the Court held that an employee on vacation or sick leave with pay remains in the employer-employee relationship; the continuity of remuneration attests to the continuity of service. Therefore, the illnesses supervened during employment, giving rise to the presumption that they are compensable.
Once this presumption attaches, the burden shifts to the employer to present substantial evidence to disprove the work-connection. The respondent employer, the Provincial Government of Sulu, failed to adduce any such evidence. The WCC erred by improperly shifting the burden of proof back onto the claimant to elaborate on the conditions of his work. The claimant had already presented the Physician’s Report stating the illnesses were caused by his employment, which was sufficient to establish the preliminary link. The employer’s failure to rebut the presumption made the claim compensable. The Court thus affirmed the computation of benefits made by the Acting Chief, awarding compensation for disability under Sections 14 and 17 of the Act, plus reimbursement for medical expenses and attorney’s fees.