G.R. No. L-20424; October 22, 1964
CENTRAL AZUCARERA DON PEDRO, petitioner, vs. ELIAS AGNO and WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, respondents.

FACTS

Respondent Elias Agno was employed by petitioner Central Azucarera Don Pedro from 1927, serving as head mechanic in the centrifugating department. His duties involved overhauling heavy machinery, lifting heavy parts, and performing repairs in a very warm environment for eight hours daily. He stopped working on January 30, 1959. On April 16, 1959, a company physician, via chest X-ray, diagnosed Agno with moderately advanced tuberculosis in his left lung. The Workmen’s Compensation Commission found that his disease was contracted in 1958 or earlier during his employment and was traceable to his working conditions. The Commission awarded Agno disability benefits, medical services, an administrative fee, and attorney’s fees. The employer contested the award, arguing lack of evidence linking the illness to work and disputing the total disability finding and the propriety of the attorney’s fees award.

ISSUE

The issues are: (1) whether the Commission erred in finding Agno’s tuberculosis compensable; (2) whether the award for total disability was proper; and (3) whether the Commission could award attorney’s fees motu proprio without a prayer or evidence.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the Commission’s award with modification regarding attorney’s fees. On compensability, the Court upheld the finding that Agno’s tuberculosis was work-related. The Commission’s inference from established facts—his strenuous work in a warm environment—was not arbitrary. Crucially, the statutory presumption under the Workmen’s Compensation Act that a claim is compensable unless disproved by the employer applied. Petitioner failed to prove Agno was free from tuberculosis when he ceased work or that the disease progressed only after his employment ended.
On the total disability award, the Court rejected petitioner’s argument that tuberculosis does not cause total disability. The extent of disability is a factual issue, and the Commission’s finding was supported by evidence: the advanced X-ray results, Agno’s complete stoppage of work, and the absence of any offer for lighter work from the employer. The burden was on the employer to show what work the employee could still perform without health detriment, which it did not meet.
However, the Court deleted the award for attorney’s fees. The Commission acted without authority in awarding fees motu proprio when Agno did not pray for them and presented no evidence to justify such an award. Neither the Workmen’s Compensation Act, the Commission’s rules, nor the Civil Code grants such ex parte power in a dispute between employee and employer. Thus, the decision was modified by deleting the attorney’s fees but affirmed in all other respects.