G.R. No. L-21724 April 27, 1967
NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, petitioner, vs. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION and GERTRUDES LUCAS VDA. DE RAYMUNDO, respondents.

FACTS

Respondent Gertrudes Lucas Vda. de Raymundo filed a claim for workmen’s compensation on April 27, 1960, for the death of her husband, Luis Raymundo, on January 23, 1954. She alleged that her husband was employed by the National Development Company (NDC) for over 12 years as a machine tender in the Finishing Department. His work involved lifting heavy loads, pushing wagons loaded with wet cloth, and mixing chemicals, performed mostly at night with exposure to sudden temperature changes. Due to this strenuous work, he began losing weight, suffered headaches and chest pains, and later spat blood. He retired due to poor health on May 6, 1953, and died eight months later on January 23, 1954, from pulmonary tuberculosis. NDC denied liability, contending that Luis Raymundo never contracted tuberculosis in its employ, that tuberculosis was not an occupational disease related to his work, and that the claim was barred by prescription for being filed beyond the three-month period from death. The Workmen’s Compensation Commission affirmed a decision awarding death compensation and burial expenses to the respondent. NDC appealed to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

1. Whether the evidence presented by the respondent (her testimony and documentary exhibits) is admissible to support the award.
2. Whether death benefits can be recovered when the illness that caused death was not contracted during employment but was merely aggravated by the nature of the employment.
3. Whether the respondent’s claim is barred by prescription despite being filed more than three months after the employee’s death.

RULING

1. Yes, the evidence is admissible. The testimony of the respondent, as an interested party, is not self-serving and is admissible as she testified in court under oath and was subject to cross-examination. The documentary exhibits (death certificate, doctor’s affidavit, and NDC’s termination letter), while potentially hearsay under common law rules, are expressly admissible under Section 49 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act. This section, along with the presumptions in Section 44, establishes a simpler and more summary procedure for compensation claims, departing from strict common law evidence rules to ensure fair treatment for workers. Furthermore, other substantial evidence, including testimony from a co-employee and evidence of gratuity payment due to illness, supported the award.
2. Yes, death benefits can be recovered. Although Section 8 of the Act refers to a disease “contracted” causing death, and the illness here was allegedly merely “aggravated,” the Court held that the phrase “illness… aggravated by… the nature of such employment” was inserted as a ground for compensation in Section 2 by Republic Act No. 772 . The omission of a corresponding change in Section 8 was a mere oversight. Section 8, which governs the amount of compensation, must be deemed to also cover cases where the illness was aggravated, not just contracted, due to employment.
3. No, the claim is not barred by prescription. The defense of prescription cannot be sustained for three reasons: First, the petitioner (NDC) failed to controvert the claim as required by Section 45 of the Act, thus forfeiting its right to raise prescription. Second, the payment of gratuity to Raymundo under a policy for employees with tuberculosis excused the delay in filing the claim. Third, the petitioner showed no damage resulting from the delay, which is another circumstance excusing delay under Section 27 of the Act.
The decision and resolution of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission were affirmed.