GR L 20103; (September, 1964) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-20103 September 30, 1964
MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY, petitioner, vs. CONCHITA VDA. DE CHAVEZ, in her own behalf and as Guardian Ad Litem for her minor children, ROSA, LILIA and TOMAS, all surnamed CHAVEZ and the WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, respondents.
FACTS
Eugenio Chavez worked as a crossing keeper for the Manila Railroad Company from 1946 until his death in 1957. He was hospitalized for pulmonary tuberculosis in late 1956, resumed work, but was confined again in March 1957. He was discharged in April and died from the illness on August 10, 1957. His widow, Conchita Vda. de Chavez, filed a claim for death benefits under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. The Workmen’s Compensation Commission awarded compensation, finding the death compensable. The Company assails this award, arguing the death is not work-related and the claim is barred for lack of timely notice.
ISSUE
The issues are: (1) Whether the death of Eugenio Chavez from pulmonary tuberculosis is compensable under the Workmen’s Compensation Act; and (2) Whether the claim is barred for failure to provide formal notice within the statutory period.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the Commission’s award, ruling the death compensable and the claim not barred. On compensability, the Court upheld the Commission’s factual findings. Although Chavez’s primary duty of raising a crossing bar was not strenuous, two work conditions aggravated his tuberculosis: his rotating shift schedule and his inadequate work shelter. His schedule required him to work night shifts for two-thirds of a 45-day cycle, disrupting normal rest. His shelter was a flimsy lean-to without walls or flooring, offering poor protection from the elements. The Court deferred to the Commission’s conclusion that these debilitating conditions contributed to the worsening of his pre-existing disease, making the resulting death compensable.
On the procedural issue, the Court held the claim was not barred. Section 24 of the Act requires notice of injury/sickness and a claim within prescribed periods. The record showed the Company had actual knowledge of Chavez’s illness and death: it adjusted his shift after his 1956 hospitalization, allowed his son to substitute for him in March 1957, and his widow reported his condition to a company official. The Company itself assisted in processing a gratuity claim with the GSIS after his death. This actual knowledge substitutes for formal written notice. Furthermore, the Company failed to report the death to the Commission as required by Section 45 of the Act, thereby renouncing its right to controvert the claim. The award was thus sustained.