G.R. No. L-43647 August 31, 1984
Eustaquio Barbas, claimant-petitioner, vs. Victorias Milling Co., Inc. and/or Workmen’s Compensation Commission, respondents-appellees.

FACTS

Petitioner Eustaquio Barbas was employed by respondent Victorias Milling Company from 1947 until his retirement on September 30, 1971, at age fifty-five. In August 1972, he filed a claim for disability benefits under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, alleging he contracted pulmonary tuberculosis (PTB) in 1969 while still employed. The Workmen’s Compensation Unit in Bacolod City initially granted his claim in 1975, awarding temporary partial disability benefits based on a medical finding of PTB Minimal with a 12% disability evaluation.
The petitioner appealed the award amount to the Workmen’s Compensation Commission, believing he was entitled to higher benefits under Section 14 of the Act. However, the Commission reversed the Bacolod Unit’s finding of compensability and dismissed the claim entirely. The Commission held that the petitioner failed to prove his PTB was contracted during his employment, noting his primary x-ray evidence was taken in September 1972, after his retirement.

ISSUE

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

RULING

Yes, the Commission erred. The Supreme Court reversed the Commission’s decision, reinstating and modifying the award from the Bacolod Unit. The legal logic centers on the application of the presumption of compensability under the Workmen’s Compensation Act and a proper review of the evidence. The Commission incorrectly based its dismissal solely on the post-retirement x-ray from 1972, ignoring other substantial evidence.
The records, including the petitioner’s affidavit (Exh. “B”) and a company sick leave form from November 1969 (Exh. “D”), conclusively showed that he was diagnosed with PTB and underwent hospital confinement and treatment for it in 1969 while still actively employed. The respondent company’s own physicians diagnosed the illness and the company paid for his medicines, which the respondent never rebutted. This evidence established the onset of the illness during employment, triggering the presumption that it was work-related. His retirement at age 55, before the standard retirement age, was deemed forced by the progression of his ailment, constituting temporary total disability. While the exact duration of disability was unclear, equitable considerations and the Act warranted the maximum award. Thus, the Court awarded P6,000.00 in disability compensation, plus attorney’s fees and administrative costs.