G.R. No. L-42916 August 7, 1985
DONATO JEREZA, claimant-appellant, vs. LUIS T. MONDIA AND/OR WORKMEN’S INSURANCE COMPANY, respondent-appellee.

FACTS

Donato Jereza filed a claim for disability benefits under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, alleging he contracted far advanced pulmonary tuberculosis (PTB) arising from and in the course of his employment as a wenchman for respondent Luis T. Mondia. The Workmen’s Compensation Unit of Bacolod City awarded Jereza compensation, finding his illness compensable. The Unit noted the employer did not controvert the claim and had even made advance compensation payments. The respondent’s insurer, Workmen’s Insurance Company, appealed to the Workmen’s Compensation Commission.
The Commission reversed the Unit’s decision and dismissed the claim. It ruled that Jereza failed to substantiate his PTB diagnosis with sufficient medical proof. The Commission held that the submitted physician’s report, without an accompanying x-ray reading report, was insufficient to prove the ailment. It placed the burden of proof on the claimant to present substantial evidence of his illness, a burden which it found he failed to meet.

ISSUE

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

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court reversed the Commission’s decision. The legal logic rests on two fundamental principles under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. First, the law establishes a rebuttable presumption that an illness which supervenes during employment arose out of or was aggravated by said employment. This presumption dispenses with the initial need for proof from the claimant and shifts the burden to the employer to present substantial evidence to disconnect the illness from the work. The Commission erred in requiring Jereza to present additional substantial evidence, as it improperly ignored this statutory presumption.
Second, the employer’s failure to controvert the claim within the statutory period constitutes a waiver of all non-jurisdictional defenses, rendering the claim beyond challenge. Here, the employer not only failed to controvert but also paid advance compensation, which act admits liability. Consequently, the compensability of the claim could no longer be disputed. Furthermore, the Court clarified that an x-ray report is not an indispensable prerequisite for compensation. A medical report from an attending physician, which was part of the record and unchallenged as false, constitutes competent evidence to prove the illness. Therefore, the decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Unit was reinstated with a modification increasing the attorney’s fees.