[ G.R. No. L-42893. September 30, 1976 ] 165 Phil. 222
FIRST DIVISION
[ G.R. No. L-42893. September 30, 1976 ]
LEOPOLDO AYUSO, PETITIONER, VS. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION AND WHITE WAYS, INC., RESPONDENTS. D E C I S I O N
MARTIN, J.:
Petition for review of the decision of the respondent Workmen’s Compensation Commission denying the claim of petitioner Leopoldo Ayuso (now deceased) for compensation benefits under the Workmen’s Compensation Act.
On May 16, 1973, Leopoldo Ayuso filed a claim for compensation benefits with the Acting Referee of the Regional Office No. IV, Department of Labor, Manila. While waiting for the decision on his claim, Leopoldo Ayuso died on August 15, 1975. Accordingly pursuant to the provisions of the Rules of Court, his wife,[1] Apolonia Bautista was substituted for her deceased husband in the present petition.
It appears that the deceased Leopoldo Ayuso was employed by private respondent White Ways, Inc. as a laborer from 1970 until August 31, 1972 with a salary of P9.00 a day. As a laborer, he was assigned to do menial work like cleaning toilets and medicine containers and making repairs in the comfort rooms of private respondent. Before he was employed by private respondent, he worked from 1965 to 1970 with the “Better Buildings,” a sister company belonging to the owners of White Ways, Inc. While still working with the “Better Buildings” he was already suffering from coronary disease. As a matter of fact in 1967 and 1968 he was confined in the Philippine General Hospital. On November 12, 1972 when he was already employed with the private respondent, he was confined again in the Philippine General Hospital where his illness was diagnosed as “cor-pulmonable, secondary to primary lung disease with minimal PTB” by Dr. Mediadora Claudio. He was also found to have an enlarged heart. Another doctor, Dr. Bravo, also of the same hospital has the same diagnosis of petitioner’s illness. Both doctors were of the opinion that his lung ailment was aggravated by his work and certified that petitioner was not fit to do any strenuous work as it would only make his ailment worse. The Physician’s Report of Sickness or Injury and Claim for Compensation[2] signed by Dr. Claudio shows that the deceased was suffering from a total disability.
In denying the claim of petitioner, respondent Commission ruled that the latter failed to establish that he contracted his illness while still employed by the private respondent and that granting that he got his illness during the course of his employment, the deceased was not able to establish by substantial evidence that his illness incapacitated him for labor before his separation from the service and that his separation was due to the closing of the business of the private respondent and not because of his illness.
The records show that before the deceased was employed by private respondent he had worked with a sister company of the latter from 1965 to 1970. At that time he has been confined in the Philippine General Hospital twice - once in 1967 and then in 1968. In 1970, he was already complaining of persistent cough. The confinement of the deceased in the Philippine General Hospital in 1967 and 1968 for lung ailment while he was still working with the “Better Buildings” should have forwarned private respondent about his physical condition. So when private respondent allowed him to work with the White Ways, Inc., it has assumed the risk of answering for the further aggravation of his illness. With the foregoing, it cannot be denied therefore that the illness of the deceased supervened in the course of his employment with private respondent. As this Court held in a long line of decisions, once it is shown that the illness supervened in the course of employment, there is the rebuttable presumption[3] that said illness arose out of or was aggravated in the course of his employment[4] and with the presumption, the burden shifts to the employer and the employee is relieved of the burden to show causation.[5] Private respondent has not offered any proof to rebut the evidence of the deceased that his illness was aggravated by the nature of his employment. All that it tried to show is that the illness of the deceased did not incapacitate him for work before his separation from the service. However, the Physician’s Report of Sickness or Injury clearly states that the disability of deceased was “total” and that the deceased was not fit to do any strenuous work. If the deceased was constrained to do the same kind of job with private respondent, it could be because he wanted to earn something to meet the needs of his family. Knowing of his physical condition, private respondent could have assigned him to a less strenuous work. Besides, it is not the fact that one can still work, although forcing himself to do so, but whether his physical condition would permit him to do normally the job assigned to him, which in this case consists of cleaning toilets, making repairs in the comfort rooms and of medicine containers. If, according to the Physician’s Report of Sickness or Injury, his incapacity was total, then pursuant to Section 14 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act[6] he should be entitled to compensation benefits of P6,000.00. It is further contended by private respondent that the deceased had to be separated from his employment because its license to operate the business had already expired. This will not excuse private respondent from the liability to give compensation benefits to its employee who became ill during the course of his employment. The closing of the business of private respondent cannot prejudice the rights of the employees to recover what is due to them under the law.
WHEREFORE , the judgment of the respondent Commission is hereby set aside and a new decision rendered ordering the private respondent to pay the petitioner compensation benefits for his permanent and total disability in the amount of P6,000.00, plus attorney’s fees equivalent to ten percent (10%) of the amount that the petitioner is entitled to recover as herein indicated.
With pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED. Teehankee, (Chairman), Makasiar, Muñoz Palma, and Concepcion, Jr., JJ., concur.