G.R. No. L-43349 October 23, 1984
Remus Villavieja, petitioner, vs. Marinduque Mining and Industrial Corporation, and the Workmen’s Compensation Commission, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Remus Villavieja was employed as a helper in the crushing plant of respondent Marinduque Mining and Industrial Corporation. His duties involved operating and maintaining a conveyor machine, which exposed him to fumes, smoke, heat, physical strain, and other hardships, including having to hold his urination. In May 1973, while still employed, he underwent an operation for kidney trouble. He returned to work in September 1973, although his illness was not fully arrested, and continued working until his dismissal on January 23, 1975.
On February 5, 1975, Villavieja filed a claim for injury or sickness benefits and medical reimbursement with the Workmen’s Compensation Unit. The respondent employer did not controvert this claim. The Unit’s Chief awarded the claims. However, the employer later filed a petition for review, arguing a lack of due process as no formal hearing was held and that the kidney illness was not work-connected. The Workmen’s Compensation Commission en banc reversed the award, holding the grant of a 50% Non-Scheduled Disability (NSD) benefit was without basis under the law.

ISSUE

Whether the Workmen’s Compensation Commission committed grave abuse of discretion in reversing the award and dismissing the claim, including for medical expenses, and in holding that kidney stones constitute a non-compensable, non-scheduled disability.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversed the Commission’s decision, and reinstated the award. The legal logic is anchored on the employer’s failure to comply with the mandatory requirement to controvert the claim under Section 45 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act. The Court reiterated the well-settled presumption of compensability under Section 44, whereby an illness supervening during employment is presumed to arise out of or be aggravated by the work. This presumption shifts the burden of proof to the employer to rebut it with substantial evidence.
Here, the employer’s failure to file a timely notice of controversion constituted a renunciation of its right to challenge the claim and a waiver of all non-jurisdictional defenses, including the defense that the illness was not work-related. Consequently, the Workmen’s Compensation Unit was correct in issuing an outright award without a formal hearing. The employer’s subsequent arguments before the Commission could not revive these waived defenses. Regarding the disability rating, the Court found that kidney stones, while not explicitly listed, could be compensated under the schedule for chronic abdominal diseases resulting in functional derangement, and it deferred to the medical rating officer’s evaluation over the Commission’s general observation.