Home of ChanRobles Virtual Law Library

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-25974. April 4, 1975.]

PANGASINAN TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, INC., Petitioner, v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION and ARTURO DOCOYCOY, Respondents.

Chuidian Law Offices for Petitioner.

P. C. Villavieja & A. F. Martinez for respondent WCC.

Gabriel A. Zabala for Private Respondent.

SYNOPSIS


Claimant was employed by petitioner from 1947 until 1963 when he was dismissed because he was afflicted with tuberculosis. He was assigned to such tasks as painting and cleaning buses, driving cargo trucks, unloading gasoline drums, and guarding the water pump. During the period of his employment, he was hospitalized, once for pulmonary tuberculosis, once on account of an accident in the course of employment, and on several occasions for undisclosed illness; but he went back to work after each confinement. His claim for compensation was dismissed by the referee for insufficiency of evidence. When the case was elevated to the Commission, claimant assisted by counsel, gave notice to withdraw the claim after a talk with the manager in the presence of union officials. Despite his withdrawal, the Commission proceeded with the case and rendered judgment in his favor. Before this court, petitioner urged that the Commission erred (1) in not remanding the case to the referee to ascertain the cause for withdrawal, and in concluding that claimant did not know his right when he filed said withdrawal; (2) in not holding that the claim was filed out of time; and (3) in holding the claim as compensable, contrary to the evidence.

Judgment affirmed.


SYLLABUS


1. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION; COMPROMISE AGREEMENT OF PARTIES LEADING TO WITHDRAWAL OF CLAIM REQUIRES APPROVAL BY COMMISSION. — Where claimant withdraws his claim for compensation without giving reason therefor, but merely stating that he did so "after having a talk with the manager in the presence of union officials", thereby presupposing that the parties reached an amicable settlement, the Workmen’s Compensation Commission committed no error in not remanding the case to the referee to ascertain the consideration for the withdrawal of the claim and in proceeding with the case and rendering judgment thereon in favor of claimant. Under Section 29 of Act 3428 any agreement on compensation, to be valid, (1) must provide an amount at least equal to that provided by law; and (2) must be approved by the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner or his authorized representative. Thus, even if the required amount to be paid is complied with, the agreement leading to the withdrawal of the claim is not valid unless approved by the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner.

2. ID.; NOTICE OF CLAIM; FAILURE TO FILE CLAIM ON TIME NOT A JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT AND DOES NOT BAR PROCEEDING IF EMPLOYER HAD KNOWLEDGE OF INJURY OR SICKNESS. — Failure on the part of an employee to comply with the requirement of Section 24 concerning the giving of notice and the filing of the claim within the prescribed period is non-jurisdictional in nature and does not constitute a bar to the proceeding if it is shown that the employer, his agent or representative, had knowledge of the injury, sickness or death, or that the employer did not suffer by such delay or failure. The private respondent availed of the facilities of the company hospital and so, the employer or his agent must have had knowledge of the sickness of the former.

3. ID.; CLAIM IS COMPENSABLE IF EMPLOYMENT CONTRIBUTED TO AGGRAVATION OF ILLNESS. — There is no need to indulge in the statutory presumption of compensability to make an award if the facts clearly show that claimant’s employment contributed to the aggravation of the illness. Thus, an employee is entitled to compensation where it appears that after he suffered from pulmonary tuberculosis he was given a light assignment as guard at the water pump, but a year later was returned to his former job as gasoline man resulting in the aggravation of his illness to the extent of requiring his hospitalization and causing his subsequent dismissal from the service.

4. ID.; FINDINGS OF FACT BINDING ON THE SUPREME COURT IF SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. — The findings of fact of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission, if supported by substantial evidence, are binding on the Supreme Court.


D E C I S I O N


MAKALINTAL, C.J.:


This is a petition for review of the decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission dated December 23, 1965, and the resolution dated April 4, 1966, denying the motion for reconsideration.

The claimant, Arturo Dacoycoy, was hired by the Pangasinan Transportation Company in 1947 as a painter. In that job he had to clean the company buses by removing the dirt, dust and rust before painting them. In 1954 he was assigned as a gasoline man. His duties were to drive a cargo truck and deliver gasoline and oil contained in drums to the bus stations of the company in Pangasinan and in Tarlac. He would unload the drums, which had a capacity of 200 liters each, and then roll them a distance of about fifteen meters.

On January 3, 1954 the claimant had a chest x-ray examination at the Pangasinan Provincial Hospital and the findings were as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Rt. lung: Minimal T.B. fibro-exudative type, 1st and 4th intercostal spaces. Increased fibrosis of the hilar region.

"Lt. lung: Fibrosis upper lobe with calcifications in the hilum."cralaw virtua1aw library

Another x-ray examination taken on December 9, 1954 showed "fibroid infiltrates both upper lobes" of claimant’s lungs.

On January 3, 1955 the claimant was confined in the Pangasinan Provincial Hospital for pulmonary tuberculosis. His x-ray examination revealed that his illness had progressed to "moderate T.B. bilateral chronic fibro-exudative type, with cavitation in the right." On January 14, 1955 he was released from the hospital. When he reported for work at the company he was given a light assignment as guard at the water pump, but after a year he was returned to his former job as gasoline man.

From 1956 to 1958 the claimant was hospitalized for 3 or 4 days each year for undisclosed illness, but went back to work after each confinement. In 1960 he met an accident in the course of employment when he was pinned between a truck and a forklift. As a result he spat blood and was confined at the company hospital. Thereafter he resumed working until December 7, 1962, when he was again confined at the same hospital for pulmonary tuberculosis. He was released on February 11, 1963, but the company refused to readmit him because according to its management officials he was afflicted with tuberculosis although there was a certification from the hospital that he had recovered and was "physically fit for work."cralaw virtua1aw library

On March 12, 1963 the claimant filed his claim for compensation with the Workmen’s Compensation Unit in Dagupan City, which in turn referred it to the company. On March 28, 1963 the latter submitted the required Employer’s Report of Accident or Sickness, indicating therein its intention to controvert the claim. In due time the case was heard.

After the claimant presented his evidence the respondent moved to dismiss on the ground that the claim was filed beyond the period prescribed in Section 24 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act. Sustaining the respondent, the Acting Referee dismissed the claim by order of July 30, 1964. The claimant moved to reconsider. In his order dated September 15, 1964, the Acting Referee maintained the dismissal of the claim but on a different ground not raised in the respondent’s motion to dismiss: that the claimant’s evidence was not sufficient to establish the compensability of the claim.

On October 17, 1964 the claimant filed a petition for review of the order of September 15, 1964. Finding no justification for reversing or modifying his previous order, the Acting Referee elevated the case to the Workmen’s Compensation Commission. On September 9, 1965 the claimant, assisted by counsel, filed with the Workmen’s Compensation Unit in Dagupan City a notice withdrawing his claim against the Respondent. The notice was forwarded to the Workmen’s Compensation Commission and attached to the record of the case.

Notwithstanding the notice of withdrawal of claim the Commission proceeded with the case and on December 23, 1965 rendered its decision, the dispositive portion of which reads as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered setting aside the Orders dated July 30, 1964 and September 15, 1964, respectively, of Acting Referee, and ordering the respondents:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"1. To pay the claimant in one lump sum through this Commission the sum of THREE THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED FIFTY FOUR and 16/100 PESOS (P3,254.16) as compensation; and commencing August 21, 1965, to pay the claimant a weekly compensation of P21.84 until his illness is declared by competent authority to have been cured or arrested, but not to exceed the period of 208 weeks nor the amount of P4,000.00 in the aggregate;

"2. To provide the claimant with the necessary medical, surgical and hospital services and supplies as the nature of the sickness may require, pursuant to Sec. 13 of the Act;

"3. To pay claimant’s counsel the sum of THREE HUNDRED TWENTY FIVE and 42/100 PESOS (P325.42) as attorney’s fees; and

"4. To pay the Workmen’s Compensation Fund the sum of THIRTY EIGHT PESOS (P33.00 as decision fee and P5.00 as cost of this review) pursuant to Sec. 55 of the Act."cralaw virtua1aw library

On February 8, 1966 the respondent filed a motion for reconsideration and/or rehearing but was turned down for lack of merit. As regards the prayer for rehearing the Commission en banc found that "apart from the question of its legal propriety, the same has become academic as the claimant himself has already repudiated his Withdrawal of Claim."cralaw virtua1aw library

Thereupon the respondent instituted the instant petition, alleging that the Workmen’s Compensation Commission erred: (1) in not remanding the case to the Acting Referee for the purpose of ascertaining what was the consideration for the withdrawal of claim, and in concluding without any basis at all that claimant did not know his right at the time he filed said withdrawal of claim; (2) in not holding that the claim was filed beyond the reglementary period provided for by law; and (3) in holding the claim as compensable, contrary to the evidence on record.

The private respondent moved to dismiss the petition on the ground that the petitioner had complied partially with the decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission by making an advance payment to him in the sum of P1,300.00. Denying the allegation of the private respondent, the petitioner further averred that "if ever there was really any payment to him, the same has no connection whatsoever to the above entitled case or to the claim for compensation filed in the Regional Office of the Department of Labor in Dagupan City." By resolution of June 8, 1966, the petition was given due course.

In connection with the first assigned error it is to be noted that the private respondent did not give any reason for withdrawing his claim. He merely stated in his motion that he was "withdrawing his claim for compensation against the respondent Pangasinan Transportation Company after having a talk with the President and General Manager Don Rafael Gonzales . . . in the presence of union officials . . ." Evidently there was an amicable settlement reached by the parties. However, under Section 29 of Act 3428 * two requisites must be fulfilled for any agreement concerning compensation to be valid, namely: (1) the amount agreed upon must be at least equal to that provided by the Act and (2) the agreement must be approved by the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner or his authorized representative. Even granting that the first requisite regarding the amount to be paid was complied with, still the agreement reached by the parties that led to the withdrawal of the claim is not valid since it was not "approved by the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner, or any of his authorized representatives." Consequently, there is no necessity for remanding the case to the Acting Referee to determine what was the consideration for the withdrawal of the claim.

Moreover, as found by the respondent Commission the claimant himself had already repudiated his withdrawal of claim.

The second assigned error is likewise without merit. It is now settled in this jurisdiction that failure on the part of an employee to comply with the requirement of Section 24 concerning the giving of notice and the filing of the claim within the prescribed period is non-jurisdictional in nature and does not constitute a bar to the proceeding if it is shown that the employer, his agent or representative, had knowledge of the injury, sickness or death, or that the employer did not suffer by such delay or failure. 1 Here, the private respondent availed of the facilities of the company hospital when he was hospitalized on December 7, 1962 for pulmonary tuberculosis. Under the circumstance, the employer or his agent had knowledge of the sickness of the employee.

With respect to the compensability of the claim the respondent Commission made the following findings:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

". . . With regard to the second point, it should be noted that the respondent since 1954 knew of the illness of the claimant but it allowed him to continue working until its aggravation forced the respondent to give him a light job. One year thereafter, it returned him to his old job despite the risk of further aggravating his illness. Aggravate further it inevitably did, to the extent of requiring his hospitalization and causing his subsequent dismissal from the service.

x       x       x


"We need not rely on the respondent’s forfeiture of its right nor indulge in the statutory presumption of compensability to make an award in this case, for the facts clearly show that claimant’s employment as driver and gasoline man contributed to the aggravation of his illness."cralaw virtua1aw library

The foregoing findings are supported by substantial evidence and therefore binding on this Court. As to the certification issued by the hospital to the effect that the private respondent had recovered and was "physically fit for work", suffice it to state that even the management did not give credence to it, as shown by the fact that said private respondent was dismissed from the service by reason of his illness.

WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is affirmed, with costs against the petitioner.

Teehankee, Makasiar, Esguerra and Muñoz Palma, JJ., concur.

Castro, J., took no part.

Endnotes:



* SEC. 29. Agreement on compensation. — In case the employer and the injured laborer or the dependents entitled to compensation arrive at any agreement concerning the compensation provided for by this Act, such agreement in order to be valid, shall provide, at least, the same amount of compensation as that prescribed by this Act and must be approved by the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner, or any of his authorized representatives: Provided, however, That the employer shall be exempt from all liability under this Act as soon as the compensation has been paid in accordance with this section, saving the provisions of section six of this Act.

1. Central Azucarera Don Pedro v. WCC, No. L-27870, October 23, 1974, 60 SCRA 263.

Top of Page