[ G.R. No. L-43202. May 31, 1977 ] 167 Phil. 650
FIRST DIVISION
[ G.R. No. L-43202. May 31, 1977 ]
RODRIGO LANDAYAN, PETITIONER, VS. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION AND ATLANTIC GULF & PACIFIC CO. OF MANILA, INC., RESPONDENTS. D E C I S I O N
MARTIN, J.:
Petition for review[1] of the decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission in RO4-WCC Case No. 162523 which reversed the award of P6,000.00 made by the Acting Referee Vivencio Escarcha of Regional Office No. 4 in favor of the petitioner.
Sometime in October, 1966, petitioner was employed as a carpenter by the private respondent Atlantic Gulf & Pacific Co. of Manila, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as respondent Company) with a salary of P8.00 a day for six to seven days a week. In June 1968, petitioner was was found by respondent Company’s physician, Dr. Bataclan, to be suffering from pulmonary tuberculosis. He was subsequently diagnosed by his attending physician, Dr. Amadeo Jorge, to be sick of pulmonary tuberculosis, moderately advanced, active with cavity, bronchiectasis.[2] His employment with the respondent Company was terminated on June 6, 1968. Since that time, he has been out of work due to his ailment.
On June 29, 1975, he filed his claim for compensation together with the Physician’s Report. Said claim was granted by the Acting Labor Referee, Vivencio Escarcha, in a decision rendered on October 29, 1975, the dispositive portion of which reads:
“WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered ordering the respondent Atlantic Gulf & Pacific Co. of Manila, Inc., to pay, thru this Office in lump sum:
1) The Claimant the disability compensation in the maximum sum of SIX THOUSAND PESOS (P6,000.00); and
2) To pay this Office the fee of SIXTY-ONE PESOS (P61.00) pursuant to Section 55 of the Act, as amended.”
On October 28, 1975, the respondent Commission acting on the motion for reconsideration filed by the respondent Company, reversed the decision of the Acting Labor Referee and dismissed the case for lack of merit on the ground that the Physician’s Report is not corroborated by laboratory findings or chest x-ray conducted on the petitioner.
Hence, this petition for review grounded on the sole issue as to whether or not a Physician’s Report is sufficient to support claim under Act 3428 as amended.
We reverse the decision of the respondent Commission. The Physician’s Report[3] does not require that an x-ray examination or laboratory findings be attached thereto. Their absence in the Physician’s Report will not invalidate the diagnosis appearing therein. Moreover, from the attending Physician’s Report, it can be logically inferred that a previous x-ray examination was made otherwise the physician could not have arrived at his diagnosis of the petitioner’s illness,[4] as in the case at bar wherein the following appears in the Physician’s Report:
“Diagnosis: PULMONARY TUBERCULOSIS, MODERATELY ADVANCED, ACTIVE
Prognosis: GUARDED WITH CAVITY, BRONCHIECTASIS”
With the findings that the illness of petitioner is moderately advanced and active which could easily be determined by means of physical examination, x-ray or laboratory findings is not indispensable. Moreover, the records show that the respondent Company’s physician, Dr. Bataclan, was the first one who found the petitioner to be suffering from pulmonary tuberculosis, which finding was the immediate cause of the termination of his services. The respondent Company is therefore estopped from denying the said illness suffered by the petitioner. In this connection, since the petitioner has complied with the requirements under Section 23 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act[5] We find no reason to deny him the benefits provided for by the law.
Considering that the total disability of the petitioner resulting from his illness has been duly established, he is therefore, entitled to compensation under Sections 2 and 14 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act.[6]
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the judgment of the respondent Commission is hereby reversed and set aside and the decision of the Acting Referee of Regional Office No. 4, revived and reinstated with the further modification that respondent Company should also pay petitioner medical and hospital expenses duly receipted for until full recovery and to his lawyer the amount of P600.00 as attorney’s fees.
SO ORDERED. Teehankee, (Chairman), Makasiar, Antonio, and Muñoz Palma, JJ., concur.