G.R. No. L-25640 March 21, 1968
VICTORIAS MILLING CO., INC., petitioner, vs. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION and VICENTE DEL ROSARIO, respondents.
FACTS
Vicente del Rosario started working for Victorias Milling Co. in 1923, holding various positions including laborer, sweeper, scaler, centrifugal operator, and finally river pump operator from 1930. His duties as a pump operator involved oiling, lubricating, cleaning, and tending two diesel motor pumps. His work required him to dive into water one to four brazas deep three times a week, and up to five times a night during floods, to clean clogged pipes and screeners. He worked in rotating shifts, including graveyard shifts from 11 p.m. to 7 a.m. He was hospitalized in September 1953 and again from August 26 to September 9, 1954, for minimal pulmonary tuberculosis. After resuming work, he stopped due to backache and was separated from service on August 25, 1955, on account of pulmonary tuberculosis, receiving a gratuity of P2,717.34. On January 19, 1960, he filed a claim for compensation with the Regional Office in Bacolod City. The hearing officer awarded compensation on February 28, 1964, a decision affirmed by the Workmen’s Compensation Commission on October 27, 1965, and subsequently by the Commission en banc on December 14, 1965. Victorias Milling Co. appealed.
ISSUE
1. Whether the claim for compensation was filed beyond the period prescribed by Section 24 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act.
2. Whether the company’s failure to timely file an employer’s report and notice of controversion resulted in a renunciation of its right to assert non-jurisdictional defenses.
3. Whether the claimant’s pulmonary tuberculosis was contracted or aggravated during the course of his employment, making it compensable.
RULING
1. The Supreme Court rejected the contention that the claim was filed out of time, reiterating the doctrine that failure to comply with the notice and claim filing requirements of Section 24 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act is non-jurisdictional.
2. The Court held that the company’s failure to file its employer’s report and notice of controversion within ten days after knowledge of the accident, as required by paragraph 2 of Section 45 of the Act, amounted to a statutory renunciation of its right to assert non-jurisdictional defenses. The Court clarified that the term “disability” in Section 45 includes disability due to sickness.
3. The Court affirmed the findings of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission that the claimant’s tuberculosis was contracted during his employment. The nature and conditions of his work—exposure to heat, cold water, night shifts, and debilitating environments—lowered his body resistance, either causing the disease or reactivating a dormant infection. The Court cited that while tuberculosis is an infectious disease, occupational factors that lower resistance render an individual susceptible. The Commission’s findings, being supported by substantial evidence, are binding. The claimant is entitled to compensation.
The judgment of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission was affirmed in toto.