G.R. No. L-21963; August 30, 1967
NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, petitioner, vs. ROBERTA RONGAVILLA and the WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, respondents.

FACTS

Respondent Roberta Rongavilla was employed by petitioner National Development Company (NDC) in its textile mills from October 23, 1946, until her separation on June 11, 1951, due to ill health. Her work as a pirm winder involved operating a machine, constantly being on her feet to reconnect broken yarns, and manually transporting yarn supplies. She worked on rotating weekly shifts. On October 16, 1950, she was examined at the Quezon Institute and found to have minimal pulmonary tuberculosis. After a three-month rest, she returned to work. On March 19, 1951, a subsequent examination showed the lesions had progressed to a moderately advanced stage. Her services were terminated on June 11, 1951, due to this pulmonary illness. On May 31, 1960, almost nine years after her discharge, she filed a claim for disability compensation with the Regional Office of the Department of Labor. The Hearing Officer awarded compensation, which was upheld by the Workmen’s Compensation Commission. NDC appealed, arguing (1) that tuberculosis and its aggravation were not compensable under the law at the time of her illness, and (2) that the Commission lacked jurisdiction because the claim was not filed within the period prescribed by Section 24 of Act 3428.

ISSUE

1. Whether the employee’s tuberculosis, contracted and aggravated before the enactment of Republic Act 772 (which explicitly listed tuberculosis and aggravation as compensable), is a ground for disability compensation under the original provisions of Act 3428.
2. Whether the Workmen’s Compensation Commission had jurisdiction to entertain the claim despite it being filed almost nine years after the disability commenced and without the employee filing a written claim with the employer within two months as required by Section 24 of Act 3428.

RULING

1. Yes. The Workmen’s Compensation Commission correctly held the illness compensable. Even before the amendment by Republic Act 772 on June 20, 1952, Section 2 of Act 3428 provided compensation for an illness “directly caused by such employment, or the result of the nature of such employment.” The Commission found that the rapid acceleration of Rongavilla’s tuberculosis from minimal to moderately advanced within months of returning to work was attributable to the nature of her work, which required constant exertion and rotating night shifts. The explicit insertion of “tuberculosis” and “aggravated by” in the amendatory law was merely clarificatory. The right to compensation exists if the illness was caused by or resulted from the employment, regardless of the specific nomenclature in the statute at the time, as established in Blue Bar Coconut Company vs. Boo.
2. Yes. The Workmen’s Compensation Commission had jurisdiction. The failure of the employee to file a written claim with the employer within two months is not a jurisdictional defect. The crucial requirement is for the employer to report the injury or sickness to the Commission and to file a notice of controversion within 14 days after knowledge of the disability. Failure to do so constitutes a renunciation of the right to contest the claim. NDC did not comply with this obligation. Furthermore, the action to enforce the employer’s statutory obligation prescribes in ten years under Article 1144(2) of the Civil Code. The claim, filed in 1960 for a 1951 disability, was well within this prescriptive period, as held in cases like Pan-Philippine Corporation vs. Workmen’s Compensation Commission. Therefore, the petition was dismissed, and the Commission’s decision was affirmed.