G.R. No. L-21504, September 15, 1967
MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY, petitioner, vs. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION and BELEN GLENDO VDA. DE GANDO, in her own behalf and as Guardian Ad Litem of her minor children, ALEJANDRO, ARMENIA, ALICIA, ARNALDO, and ADENIA, all surnamed GANDO, respondents.

FACTS

Alejandro Gando was an employee of the Manila Railroad Company from March 1, 1947, until his death on October 7, 1959. Initially a coalman, he worked as a lubricator-greaseman from July 1, 1952, greasing train cars and wagons under all weather conditions. A company physical on August 2, 1949, declared him fit. However, on February 27, 1952, and January 5, 1953, Dr. Fernando C. Jusay diagnosed him with “P.T.B., minimal, right.” The petitioner allowed him to continue working. Subsequent examinations on October 25 and November 23, 1956, revealed “moderately advanced pulmonary tuberculosis, right; infiltration 1st interspace to 3rd rib, left.” He was again allowed to work, and a company physician found only his right lung weak in 1958. On September 11, 1959, while using an iron bar to remove an axle cover, Gando was struck on the chest. He stopped working, suffered continuous hemoptysis, was taken home, then to the Quezon Institute on September 28, 1959, where he died on October 7, 1959, from “bilateral, far advanced pulmonary tuberculosis.” His widow, Belen Glendo Vda. de Gando, filed a death compensation claim on August 11, 1960. The petitioner filed its employer’s report on October 22, 1960. The hearing officer awarded compensation, affirmed by the Chairman and the Commission en banc, prompting this appeal.

ISSUE

1. Whether the death of Alejandro Gando is compensable under the Workmen’s Compensation Act.
2. Whether laches bars the claim due to delayed filing.
3. Whether the petitioner’s failure to controvert the claim bars its defense.
4. Whether the compensation award to the minor children is proper despite procedural issues.

RULING

1. Yes, the death is compensable. Under Section 2 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, as amended by Republic Act 772, compensation is due for an illness “aggravated by or the result of the nature of such employment.” The law presumes compensability in the absence of substantial evidence to the contrary, placing the burden on the employer to disconnect the illness from employment. The Commission found that Gando’s tuberculosis was aggravated by his work—exposure to all weather conditions and recurrent hemoptysis during employment—and his death was hastened thereby. The petitioner failed to discharge its burden of proof. The amendment including “aggravated” applies as the death occurred in 1959.
2. No, laches does not bar the claim. The petitioner itself was remiss in its duty under Section 37 of the Act to report the injury and death “as soon as possible.” Having knowledge of the death and failing to report it promptly, the petitioner cannot invoke the claimant’s delay to avoid liability.
3. Yes, the failure to controvert bars the defense. The petitioner did not comply with Section 45 of the Act, which requires controverting the right to compensation within fourteen days of disability or ten days after knowledge thereof. It only acted after the claim was filed. This failure to controvert within a reasonable time constitutes a renunciation of the right to challenge the claim.
4. Yes, the award to the minor children is proper. Although only the widow signed the claim, Item 7 of the claim listed the minor children as surviving dependents with their details. Under Section 9 of the Act, they are entitled to compensation. The widow, as the mother and legal administrator of the children’s property under Article 320 of the Civil Code, could represent them without a formal appointment as guardian ad litem. Form should not override substance.
The decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission is affirmed. Costs against the petitioner.