G.R. L-43195 November 27, 1986
FIDEL GUEVARRA, claimant-appellant, vs. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION and CITY OF MANILA (Department of Public Services), respondent-appellee.

FACTS

Fidel Guevarra was employed as a garbage collector by the City of Manila from 1949 until his optional retirement on January 31, 1972, at age 47, under Republic Act No. 1616 . He retired due to physical disability from pulmonary tuberculosis. His work involved loading and unloading garbage, traveling to various locations, and exposure to the elements. Medical reports from Dr. Tomas Josef (1969) and Dr. Romeo Pira (1972) established that Guevarra had been suffering from PTB and asthmatic bronchitis, which were directly caused or aggravated by his employment. He filed a claim for disability compensation on March 31, 1975. The respondent City of Manila controverted the claim. The Workmen’s Compensation Commission affirmed the dismissal of his claim by the regional referee, who dismissed it primarily due to Guevarra’s non-appearance at a hearing and the Commission’s finding that his service record did not indicate he stopped work due to disability, despite the medical evidence presented.

ISSUE

Whether Guevarra’s pulmonary tuberculosis is compensable under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, having arisen out of or been aggravated by the nature of his employment.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court reversed the Commission’s decision and granted the claim. The legal logic rests on several established principles under the then-governing Workmen’s Compensation Act. First, the presumption of compensability applies: an illness that supervenes during employment is presumed to have arisen out of or been aggravated by such employment. The employer bears the burden to rebut this presumption with substantial evidence. The City of Manila failed to present any such evidence. Second, the degree of proof required is merely substantial evidence, and the test is probability, not certainty. The medical reports conclusively showed a reasonable work-connection between Guevarra’s arduous and exposed duties and his respiratory illnesses. The Commission erred in discounting this evidence simply because an X-ray was only taken in 1975, as tuberculosis is an imperceptible, progressive disease, and an X-ray is not an indispensable prerequisite for compensation. Third, the approval of Guevarra’s optional retirement under R.A. 1616 at age 47 itself implies physical incapacity, as such retirement is allowed only upon proof of incapacity to render efficient service. Therefore, the fact of disability was already established. Consequently, Guevarra was entitled to disability benefits, medical reimbursement, attorney’s fees, and costs.