G.R. No. L-9449; July 24, 1959
CENTRAL AZUCARRERA DON PEDRO, petitioner, vs. CESAREO DE LEON, ETC. ET AL., respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Central Azucarrera Don Pedro is a corporation. Domingo Garin was employed by petitioner as a laborer since 1927. While performing his duties, he contracted pulmonary tuberculosis. On December 5, 1951, he applied for retirement due to ill-health, supported by a certification from petitioner’s physician. He was retired and granted retirement pay. On June 10, 1952, Garin filed a notice of sickness and claim for compensation with the Workmen’s Compensation Division. While this claim was pending, Garin died on January 11, 1953. On June 30, 1954, the respondent Commissioner rendered a decision awarding Garin disability benefits. On January 11, 1955, petitioner informed the Commissioner it was willing to pay compensation but limited to the period from October 20, 1951, to January 11, 1953 (the date of Garin’s death). On April 16, 1955, Garin’s widow filed a notice of death and claim for death benefits. On April 28, 1955, the Commissioner rendered another decision awarding disability compensation and death benefits plus burial expenses. Petitioner contested the death benefits award on grounds that the notice and claim were filed out of time, that Garin died more than two years from the date of sickness, and that the compensation rate increase after death was incorrect. The Commissioner, in an order dated June 27, 1955, ruled the delay did not prejudice petitioner and denied a hearing. Petitioner filed this petition for review, alleging grave abuse of discretion.

ISSUE

1. Whether the notice of death and claim for death benefits were filed out of time.
2. Whether the claim for death benefits should be dismissed because Garin died more than two years from the date of his sickness.
3. Whether the respondent Commissioner had sufficient proof to justify the award of death benefits and acted arbitrarily in denying petitioner’s request for a hearing.

RULING

1. No, the notice and claim were not barred. Section 24 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act requires notice and claim within specified periods, but provides exceptions if the employer voluntarily furnished medical services or made compensation payments. Petitioner admitted it furnished Garin with medical services and supplies and paid him retirement compensation. Furthermore, under Section 27, failure or delay in giving notice is not a bar if the employer had knowledge of the accident or did not suffer prejudice. Petitioner knew of Garin’s sickness from the beginning, provided treatment, and was not prejudiced by the delay.
2. No, the claim should not be dismissed. Petitioner invokes Section 8 of the Act, which requires death to occur “within two years from the date of such injury or sickness” for benefits. The Court rejected a literal interpretation, holding that the two-year period should be counted from the date the disease becomes compensable, i.e., from the date it renders the employee physically disabled from work. Garin continued working until his retirement on December 5, 1951. His ailment became compensable only from that date of incapacity. He died on January 11, 1953, which is within two years from December 5, 1951.
3. The award was justified, and no hearing was required. Petitioner failed to controvert the dependents’ right to compensation within ten days after becoming aware of Garin’s death, as required by Section 45 of the Act. Its mere communication about the date of death and a request for recomputation did not constitute a proper controversion. This failure constituted a renunciation of its right to dispute the award. Consequently, it cannot complain about lack of proof or deprivation of a hearing.
The petition was denied, and the Commissioner’s decision was affirmed.