G.R. No. L-42112. January 31, 1979.
Calingan Caleb, petitioner, vs. Workmen’s Compensation Commission and The Republic of the Philippines (Bureau of Public Highways), respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Calingan Caleb filed a claim for death benefits under the Workmen’s Compensation Act following the death of her husband, Bagay Caleb, a construction helper for the Bureau of Public Highways. The claim alleged he died on December 10, 1971, from an injury sustained in March 1970 when a big stone hit him while working on a road in Bauko, Mt. Province. The Baguio City Sub-regional Office received the claim on August 3, 1974, and the Bureau of Public Highways received notice on August 19, 1974. The respondent Republic, through the Solicitor General, filed a Motion to Dismiss on September 9, 1974, arguing the claim was filed beyond the prescribed period and the injury was not service-connected. It did not file a timely notice to controvert.
The Workmen’s Compensation Section Chief issued an award in favor of the petitioner without resolving the Motion to Dismiss or notifying the Republic of a hearing. The Workmen’s Compensation Commission, on review, reversed the award and dismissed the claim. It held the claimant failed to submit sufficient evidence, such as leave records, a death certificate, or a marriage contract, to establish a causal connection between the injury, the death, and the employment, or to prove dependency.

ISSUE

Whether the Workmen’s Compensation Commission erred in dismissing the claim for death benefits.

RULING

Yes, the Commission committed a grave error. The legal presumption of compensability under the Workmen’s Compensation Act operates in favor of the claimant. The attached Physician’s Report by Dr. Edgar N. Rapisora clearly stated the injury—an old fracture dislocation of the right knee—was caused by a “fall while working on the road” and resulted in permanent total disability. This established a prima facie causal connection between the injury and the employment.
The burden then shifted to the employer, the Republic, to rebut this presumption by substantial evidence. Critically, the employer failed to file a timely notice of controversion within the 10-day period after receipt of the claim as required by Section 45 of Act No. 3428 . The Motion to Dismiss filed on September 9, 1974, was beyond this period. This failure to controvert on time constituted a waiver of the right to challenge the claim’s compensability and, as settled jurisprudence holds, a waiver of the right to due process, including a hearing. The employer’s liability was thus deemed admitted.
Consequently, the outright award by the Sub-regional Office was proper under the Commission’s own rules for uncontroverted cases. The Commission’s requirement for the claimant to present further documentary evidence ignored the legal effect of the uncontroverted status and the operative presumption. The Supreme Court reversed the Commission’s decision and reinstated the award of death and burial benefits, with an additional order for attorney’s fees.