G.R. No. L-46131 June 22, 1983
Epifania V. Lavilla, petitioner, vs. Secretary of Labor (Workmen’s Compensation Commission) and Republic of the Philippines (Bureau of Public Schools), respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Epifania V. Lavilla was a public school teacher employed by the Bureau of Public Schools since 1945. After 28 years of service, she ceased working in April 1973 at age 63 due to hypertension and chronic laryngitis, diagnosed in December 1972. Her attending physician opined these illnesses resulted from her employment, citing exposure to adverse climate causing laryngitis and work-related stress causing hypertension. She filed a claim for disability compensation, submitting the required notices and physician’s report. The employer, through the District Supervisor, indicated it was not controverting the claim, and no formal answer or notice of controversion was filed by the Solicitor General. The Acting Referee awarded compensation benefits.
The Solicitor General, 43 days after receiving the Referee’s decision, filed a Petition for Relief From Judgment, citing workload pressures and arguing a lack of substantial evidence proving the illnesses were work-connected. The Workmen’s Compensation Commission sustained the Solicitor General and reversed the award. Petitioner sought review, arguing the Commission erred.

ISSUE

Whether the Workmen’s Compensation Commission erred in reversing the award of disability compensation to the petitioner.

RULING

Yes, the Commission committed reversible error. The legal logic hinges on the statutory presumption of compensability and the consequences of non-controversion under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. The petitioner’s illnesses supervened during her employment, having manifested only after 28 years of service. Under Section 44(1) of the Act, when an illness arises in the course of employment, a rebuttable presumption exists that it arose out of or was aggravated by said employment. This presumption shifts the burden of proof to the employer to establish non-compensability.
In this case, the employer failed to present any evidence to overcome this presumption. On the contrary, the physician’s report constituted evidence of work-connection. Moreover, and decisively, the employer failed to timely controvert the claim. The Employer’s Report itself indicated non-controversion, and no answer or notice of controversion was filed. For failure to controvert, the employer is deemed to have renounced the right to challenge the claim and to have waived all non-jurisdictional defenses. The Commission’s reliance on an alleged absence of substantial evidence was therefore misplaced, as the presumption of compensability, coupled with the waiver due to non-controversion, mandated the award. The petition was granted, and the Referee’s decision was reinstated.