G.R. No. L-43880 February 28, 1978
SIMEON A. CAÑONERO, petitioner, vs. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION and REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES (Bureau of Public Schools), respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Simeon A. Cañonero was employed by the Bureau of Public Schools from 1924 until his retirement on March 18, 1968, holding the position of Disbursing Officer. He suffered from hypertensive crises and cerebro-vascular accidents (strokes) in 1966 and 1967 during his employment. On March 31, 1975, he filed a claim for disability compensation. The Solicitor General and the Bureau of Public Schools received notice of the claim in May 1975 but filed their controversion only on May 28 and June 25, 1975, respectively.
The Workmen’s Compensation Unit referee awarded compensation benefits to Cañonero, finding the claim meritorious. The referee held that the employer’s late controversion resulted in a waiver of all non-jurisdictional defenses and that the presumption of compensability under the Workmen’s Compensation Act applied. However, the Workmen’s Compensation Commission reversed this award, prompting Cañonero to elevate the case to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the respondent employer’s failure to timely controvert the compensation claim bars it from disputing the claim’s compensability.

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the Commission’s decision and reinstated the referee’s award. The legal logic is anchored on the mandatory provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act regarding timely controversion. Sections 37 and 45 of the Act required the employer to file a notice of controversion within the prescribed period after disability or after receiving the claim. The employer’s receipt of the claim in May 1975 rendered its controversion filed later that same month as indisputably late.
This failure to comply with the statutory deadline constituted a waiver of the right to contest the claim on non-jurisdictional grounds, including the issue of compensability. Consequently, the claim is deemed admitted, and the legal presumption that the illness arose out of or was aggravated by employment stands unrebutted. The Court emphasized that requiring an employee to still substantiate a claim after an employer’s late controversion would unjustly relieve the employer of the consequence of its procedural lapse and deny the employee the benefit of the presumption.
The Court also addressed ancillary matters. It held that the approval of Cañonero’s optional retirement, which required a finding of physical incapacity, fortified his disability claim. Furthermore, the defense of late filing under Section 24 of the Act was deemed waived for not being raised below and, in any case, is a non-jurisdictional defense also barred by the failure to timely controvert. The statutory right to compensation prescribes in ten years, not the period cited by the employer. Thus, the award for total permanent disability benefits, medical reimbursement, attorney’s fees, and administrative costs was reinstated.