Case Digest: Central Azucarera Don Pedro v. Workmen's Compensation Commission, G.R. No. L-29670, October 9, 1987

    Labor Law | Policy and Definitions

• Nemesio Tanio worked for Central Azucarera Don Pedro (CENTRAL) as a laborer and later as an operator of a cane-unloading machine.
• He stopped working on February 9, 1960, due to illness, diagnosed as minimal pulmonary tuberculosis (PTB).
• Tanio opted to retire and received a gratuity payment of P400.00.
• Three years later, on October 8, 1963, Tanio filed for disability compensation and medical expenses with the Department of Labor.
• CENTRAL contested the claim, arguing it was barred due to Tanio's failure to file within the prescribed period and that minimal PTB wasn't compensable.

WoN delay or failure to notify the employer within the prescribed period bar a compensation claim. NO

That contention is without merit, there being no dispute that as soon as he exhibited the first symptoms of his ailment, which the CENTRAL’s. physician diagnosed as minimal PTB, Tanio was confined and treated at the CENTRAL’s expense at the latter’s hospital for at least three days. The employer’s act of extending and paying for medical assistance suffices for and obviates the necessity of giving him the notice required by law. Just as we have consistently ruled that compensation claims accruing under the Workmen’s Compensation Act and prior to the effectivity of the Labor Code of 1974 prescribe in ten years, so we have also held that delay or failure to give the employer notice of compensable illness or injury within the prescribed period does not bar a claim for compensation if it is shown that the latter, his agent or representative in fact knew of such injury or illness or that he suffered no damage by reason of such delay or lack of notice. 

Whether, considering the nature of the private respondent’s employment, minimal PTB is a compensable illness in his case, is also a settled question. As we held in Villones v. Employees’ Compensation Commission: 

"Moreover, this Court, in consistently holding that the disease of tuberculosis is an occupational disease or work-connected in such occupations as that of a teacher, laborer, driver, land inspector and such other occupations, hence compensable, aptly stated and WE quote: ‘Medical science has it that tuberculosis as an ailment is latent in man regardless of his age, sex and occupation. When given favorable conditions this disease becomes active and prominent. Some of these favorable conditions are: too much physical exertion without the corresponding rest; exposure to excessive heat and cold; lack of good food as to weaken the body constituents and contact with people suffering from tuberculosis . . .’ (Corales v. ECC, supra)."

Moreover, the CENTRAL having failed to comply with the mandatory requirement of Section 45 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act to controvert Tanio’s claim within the limiting periods established in said section, 12 it is deemed to have waived by operation of law its right to controvert said respondent’s claim on non-jurisdictional grounds. 

Likewise, we find the CENTRAL’s allegation that the Commission erred in awarding attorney’s fees without a prayer for such fees and evidence to justify an award thereof, devoid of merit.

The case of Central Azucarera Don Pedro v. Agno 14 cited by the CENTRAL, is no longer applicable. The insertion of the phrase "which shall be chargeable against the employer" in Section 31 of the Workmen’s Compensation Law by Rep. Act 4119, which was approved June 30, 1964 clearly indicates the intention of the law to make attorney’s fees an integral part of the compensation or benefits due the employee or his dependents under the Act. As said Section 31 fixes the amount of the attorney’s fees that may be recovered, prayer for such relief and proof thereof are no longer necessary. 

We, however, find that the Commission incurred in legal error in awarding reimbursement for medical expenses and ordering that Tanio be given medical services until his illness is cured. As already observed, after three days of confinement following discovery of his illness, Tanio had refused further treatment and was discharged from petitioner’s hospital at his own request, a fact he later confirmed in a sworn statement. The right of a disabled employee to medical attendance under Section 13 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, as amended, can be impugned or abated if he unreasonable refuses to accept the medical services proferred by the employer, or if he shall voluntarily impede or obstruct such services. 

WHEREFORE, modified only by striking therefrom the award of P1,300.00 to reimburse medical expenses incurred by Tanio as well as the order that he be extended medical services until he is cured of his illness, the decision under review is affirmed in all other respects, with costs against Central Azucarera Don Pedro.