G.R. No. L-20845 November 29, 1965
MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY, petitioner, vs. LADISLAO MANALANG and THE WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, respondents.

FACTS

Ladislao Manalang was employed by the Manila Railroad Company from October 27, 1926, to March 1, 1954, his last position being a locomotive fireman for three years. His duties included cleaning and oiling the locomotive and feeding the engine with coal or wood while it was running. In March 1950, he vomited blood at the company’s shed in Tayuman, Manila. A company physician discovered a “spot” in his left lung via X-ray. After treatment, he resumed work. In November 1953, he again vomited blood, was treated by the company’s chief physician, and subsequently retired on March 1, 1954, under the disability retirement provision of Republic Act 660. On November 10, 1958, he filed a claim for compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act with the Regional Office of the Department of Labor in Manila. The hearing officer awarded him P4,000.00 in compensation benefits on June 22, 1962. The Workmen’s Compensation Commission affirmed this decision on December 3, 1962, and additionally ordered the company to pay P300.00 as attorney’s fees to the claimant’s counsel. The Commission en banc denied the company’s motion for reconsideration on January 22, 1963.

ISSUE

1. Whether the Regional Office of the Department of Labor had jurisdiction to hear the compensation claim.
2. Whether the claim was barred for being filed beyond the two-month period prescribed by Section 24 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act.
3. Whether the claimant’s illness (pulmonary tuberculosis) arose out of or was aggravated by his employment.
4. Whether the award of attorney’s fees was proper.

RULING

1. Yes. The jurisdiction of regional offices of the Department of Labor to hear and decide claims under the Workmen’s Compensation Act is already settled.
2. No. The petitioner’s failure to file a timely controversion of the claim under Section 45 of the Act constituted a renunciation of its right to controvert, barring all defenses, including the defense of late filing. The timeliness of a claim under Section 24 is not a jurisdictional requirement and can be waived by the employer.
3. Yes. The Commission’s finding, supported by substantial evidence, was that the nature of the claimant’s work exposed him to extreme heat from the locomotive engine, sudden changes in temperature, and the necessity of sleeping on concrete benches at stations due to train delays, which lowered his resistance and allowed the tubercle bacilli to develop. These factual findings are binding and not subject to review.
4. Yes. Since Section 31 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act does not govern attorney’s fees recoverable from the adverse party, Article 2208(8) of the New Civil Code applies to supplement the deficiency, in accordance with Article 18 of the New Civil Code. The award of attorney’s fees was proper.
The decision and resolution of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission were affirmed.