[ G.R. No. L-43348. September 29, 1976 ] 165 Phil. 95
FIRST DIVISION
[ G.R. No. L-43348. September 29, 1976 ]
ISIAS PROS, PETITIONER, VS. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION AND REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES (BUREAU OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS), RESPONDENTS. D E C I S I O N
MARTIN, J.:
Petition for review of the decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission which affirmed the dismissal of petitioner’s claim for compensation benefits by the Acting Labor Referee for lack of merit.
In July 1951, petitioner Isias Pros was employed by the respondent Republic of the Philippines as a telephone lineman with a salary of P2,583.16 per annum. On June 15, 1965, while in the performance of his duties, he suffered a stroke. Upon advice of the Officer-In-Charge of the local Telecom Office he consulted the Rural Health Physician who diagnosed his ailment as hypertension. Again in August 1965 he suffered another stroke. This time he engaged the services of Dr. Jose Llanto who found him to be suffering from fainting spell, rheumatic arthritis and hypertension. For the third time in December 1966, he suffered another stroke forcing him to apply for ten (10) days leave of absence with pay (Exh. A-2). Then in February 1973 another stroke, the fourth, came for which he had to apply for a vacation leave of twenty-one (21) days with pay. All in all petitioner claims to have spent the amount of P1,500.00 for medical expenses. With this state of health he was constrained to retire from the service of respondent Republic in November 1973. After his retirement he filed his claim for compensation due to disability caused by his ailments. Respondent Republic failed to controvert the claim. On October 7, 1974, the Acting Referee conducted a hearing (ex-parte). In said hearing, petitioner presented his evidence in support of his claim. In addition he was required by the Acting Referee to submit to a physical examination by the Compensation Rating Medical Officer of Regional Office No. 8, Dr. Francisco Dayak. After the latter has submitted his Physician’s Report, petitioner’s counsel sent a letter to the Acting Referee requesting that the Physician’s Report be set for hearing so that he can cross-examine Dr. Francisco Dayak on his report. The request was, however, denied. Based on the Physician’s Report, the Acting Referee dismissed petitioner’s claim for compensation. On review of the decision of the Acting Referee, the respondent Commission affirmed the same and absolved the respondent Republic from liability under the Workmen’s Compensation Act.
Hence this petition for review which the Court treats as Special Civil Action as per its resolution dated June 4, 1976.
The main issue in this case is whether or not petitioner’s illness is compensable under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. It has sufficiently shown that petitioner as lineman for twenty-four (24) years was frequently exposed to the elements as a result of which he developed hypertension which caused him to suffer several strokes - one in June 1965, another in August 1965, a third one in December 1966 and the last one in 1973. Dr. Jose Llanto testified to this fact (Exhs. C and C-3) that he treated petitioner for hypertension; that petitioner was under check-up and medical treatment for at least twice a month; that his ailment was due to his frequent exposure to the elements; and that he advised petitioner to apply for retirement as his illness has permanently and totally disabled him for labor. As if the Acting Referee was not convinced of the extent of the illness of petitioner, he required the latter to submit to a physical examination by the Compensation Rating Medical Officer of Regional Office No. 8 who subsequently submitted a report finding petitioner’s disability to be negative. A request was made by petitioner’s counsel that the report be set for hearing but the Acting Referee refused. This is so because pursuant to Section 3 of Department Order No. 3 of the Secretary of Labor,[1] where the issue is compensability, the Unit may depend on the medical opinion and/or findings of the Compensation Rating Medical Officer as the basis for the determination of the nature and extent of the disability of the claimant in compensation cases. But as between the negative report of the Compensation Rating Medical Officer and the evidence of petitioner that he suffered no less than four (4) strokes while in the performance of his duties as telephone lineman for the respondent, the Court is inclined to give more weight to the evidence of petitioner. It is thus clear from the evidence that illness of petitioner occurred during his employment as telephone lineman for respondent. Well-settled is the rule that once the illness supervened in the course of employment, a rebuttable presumption arises that such illness arose out or was at least aggravated by such employment[2] and that the burden to overthrow said presumption shifts to the employer.[3] In the present case, the respondent has not failed to discharge such burden. It has not even controverted the claim of the petitioner. Indeed, pursuant to the mandate of the law the absence of controversion is fatal to any defense that the employer could interpose.[4] Constructively, such failure is an admission that the claim is compensable.[5] Petitioner’s claim for compensation should therefore be granted pursuant to Section 2 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act.[6] Since petitioner’s disability is permanent and total he should be entitled to an outright grant of P6,000.00 as compensation under Section 14, supra.[7] and to reimbursement of his expenses in the amount of P1,500.00 for medicines and payment of professional services of his attending physician as evidenced by Exhibits B and B-1, pursuant to Section 13 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act.[8]
WHEREFORE, IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the decision of the respondent Commission is hereby reversed and set aside and a new decision rendered ordering respondent Republic (Bureau of Telecommunications) to pay the petitioner:
The sum of P6,000.00 as disability compensation; and
The sum of P1,500.00 as reimbursement for medical expenses.
No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.
Teehankee, (Chairman), Makasiar, Muñoz Palma, and Concepcion, Jr., JJ., concur.