GR L 26657; (September, 1974) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-26657 September 12, 1974
VISAYAN STEVEDORE & TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, petitioner, vs. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION and JULIETA S. LABIYO, respondents.
FACTS
Eduardo Labiyo, employed as an engineer by Visayan Stevedore & Transportation Company, was part of a three-man crew on the tugboat “M/T DILIS.” From February 10 to 17, 1964, the crew was engaged in continuous towing and shifting operations, compelling them to stay on the tugboat. On February 17, at about 4 a.m., while navigating, Labiyo, visibly tired, requested and was granted permission to rest. At approximately 6:30 a.m., when he was called to duty, he was found dead in his bunk. An autopsy conducted by Dr. Raymundo L. Torres listed the cause of death as “bangungot,” noting his stomach was full but finding no external lesions.
ISSUE
Whether the death of Eduardo Labiyo, which occurred during his active duty and was attributed to “bangungot,” is compensable under the Workmen’s Compensation Act.
RULING
Yes, the death is compensable. The legal logic centers on the application of the presumption of compensability under Section 44 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act. The Court emphasized that the crucial and undisputed fact is that Labiyo died while in active duty, practically on 24-hour continuous service aboard the tugboat. This factual scenario invokes the statutory presumption that the claim is compensable. The burden then shifts to the employer to rebut this presumption by substantial evidence, proving that the death did not arise from or was not aggravated by the employment.
The petitioner failed to discharge this burden. The Court found the autopsy report, which cited “bangungot,” to be of limited probative value, especially as the medicolegal officer did not testify to explain this conclusion. The Commission’s finding that death likely resulted from over fatigue or heart failure due to the strenuous, continuous nature of the work was deemed reasonable. The Court further noted that “bangungot” itself was not a scientifically established cause of death but rather a theoretical condition. Consequently, the employer’s reliance on it to sever the connection between death and employment was insufficient. The presumption of compensability, unrebutted by the petitioner, stands, making the death compensable. The decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission was affirmed.