GR L 43663; (August, 1983) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-43663, August 17, 1983
NORENA TORTAL, petitioner, vs. THE WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION and RODOLFO GAMBOA, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Norena Tortal sought death compensation benefits following the demise of her son, Eduardo Tortal, who worked as a farm laborer at Hacienda Celina. Eduardo died on August 2, 1973, with the cause listed as “hypertension cerebral.” The petitioner filed a notice and claim with the Workmen’s Compensation Commission on September 12, 1973. The employer, Rodolfo Gamboa, was served by registered mail but the notice was returned “unclaimed.” Gamboa eventually submitted an employer’s report on March 8, 1974, controverting the claim by alleging the illness was neither service-incurred nor aggravated. After proceedings where both parties failed to appear at a scheduled hearing, the labor referee dismissed the claim for lack of merit. The Workmen’s Compensation Commission affirmed, ruling the claimant failed to establish a causal connection between the deceased’s illness and his employment.
ISSUE
Whether the death of Eduardo Tortal is compensable under the former Workmen’s Compensation Act.
RULING
Yes, the death is compensable. The Court reversed the Commission’s decision. Applying the former Workmen’s Compensation Act (Act No. 3428, as amended), which governed the 1973 death, two pivotal legal principles compelled this outcome. First, the presumption of compensability under Section 44 of the Act operates when an illness supervenes during employment. The claimant is relieved from proving causation, and the burden shifts to the employer to disprove that the illness arose from or was aggravated by the work. Here, Eduardo’s hypertension supervened during his farm employment, giving rise to this presumption. The employer failed to present substantial evidence to overcome this presumption; the mere allegation of a drinking spree before death did not negate a work-related cause or aggravation.
Second, the employer failed to effect a timely and valid controversion of the claim. Under Sections 37 and 54 of the old law, an employer must controvert the right to compensation within fourteen days from the death or ten days from knowledge thereof. The employer’s report filed on March 8, 1974, was patently belated. The Court found no proof to support the employer’s claim of late knowledge, noting the death occurred on the hacienda and normal course would involve immediate reporting. This failure to timely controvert resulted in a waiver of all defenses and a constructive admission of compensability. Consequently, the employer was ordered to pay death compensation, burial expenses, attorney’s fees, and an administrative fee.