G.R. No. L-23021 May 29, 1968
MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY, petitioner, vs. MARIANO RIVERA and the WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, respondents.

FACTS

Respondent Mariano Rivera was employed by petitioner Manila Railroad Company as a laborer from December 1923 to January 1942. He was re-employed in 1958 as a trackman and later promoted to maintenance capataz. A chest X-ray on January 13, 1961, revealed Rivera had pulmonary tuberculosis. On June 8, 1961, petitioner informed Rivera his illness disqualified him from employment and he should stop working. Rivera stopped on June 16, 1961, and his service was officially terminated on July 31, 1961. On October 10, 1961, Rivera filed a notice of injury and claim for compensation. The Hearing Officer awarded compensation. The Workmen’s Compensation Commission affirmed the decision with modifications. Petitioner sought review, arguing the claim was filed out of time, the disease did not produce disability, and the award was unsupported by evidence.

ISSUE

1. Whether Rivera’s pulmonary tuberculosis, which led to his termination, was a compensable disability.
2. Whether Rivera’s claim was barred for being filed beyond the two-month period prescribed by Section 24 of Act 3428.
3. Whether the Commission’s findings on the nature of Rivera’s work and the stage of his illness were supported by evidence.

RULING

1. Yes. The termination was due to disability from sickness, not the expiration of a temporary appointment. The Commission found Rivera’s appointment had become permanent. The memorandum of June 8, 1961, clearly showed termination was due to his illness.
2. No. Failure to file the notice and claim within the prescribed period is non-jurisdictional. The employer had knowledge of the illness since January 1961 and failed to controvert the claim within the statutory period, constituting a waiver of the right to controvert.
3. Yes. The Commission’s factual findings are binding if supported by substantial evidence. The Commission found Rivera’s work as a trackman and capataz, involving strain and exposure, aggravated his ailment. A rebuttable presumption exists that an illness arising during employment is work-related. Petitioner failed to present substantial evidence to overthrow this presumption. However, the award for medical expenses of P110.00 was disallowed for lack of supporting receipts or substantiation.
The decision was affirmed with the modification disallowing the medical expenses award.