G.R. No. L-42404 - Arzadon vs. Workmen's Compensation Commission

On March 12, 1975, petitioner Agripina Arzadón filed a Workmen’s Compensation claim against respondent Republic of the Philippines (Bureau of Public Schools) with the Department of Labor, Regional Office No. 1, Dagupan City.

On March 16, 1975, petitioner submitted a physician’s report of sickness, signed by Dr. Abraham Gorospe, diagnosing her with “PTB, moderately advanced”.

On March 26, 1975, the Acting Chief of the Workmen’s Compensation Section mailed, via registered mail through the Office of the Solicitor General in Manila, a copy of the notice, claim, and physician’s report to the respondent, instructing a reply within ten (10) days.

On May 27, 1975, after the respondent failed to reply within the prescribed period, the Acting Chief rendered a letter-award in favor of the petitioner amounting to P6,000.00.

The Office of the Solicitor General filed a motion on June 17, 1975 seeking to set aside the letter-award and/or to elevate the case to the Workmen’s Compensation Commission.

On June 24, 1975, the Regional Office denied the motion and forwarded the case records to the Workmen’s Compensation Commission.

On December 26, 1975, the Workmen’s Compensation Commission issued a decision reversing the letter-award on the ground that the physician’s report was not verified—specifically, lacking a chest x-ray examination—and hence, could not be presumed accurate under Section 44 of the Act as amended.

Petitioner was employed by the respondent as a public school teacher with a salary of P403.70.

She had a total government service of 42-1/2 years, and her employment involved physically demanding duties such as classroom activities, lesson planning, actual demonstrations, and prolonged standing.

On September 24, 1974, at the age of 62, she stopped working due to her illness, allegedly pulmonary tuberculosis, which resulted in several hospitalizations for fever, cough, and hemoptysis.

Despite the absence of a chest x-ray to confirm the diagnosis, the submitted physician’s report indicated “PTB, moderately advanced” along with a history of repeated hospital confinements.

The claimant’s evidence was challenged on procedural grounds, primarily the failure to verify the physician’s report.

The respondent contended that it did not receive a proper copy of the notice and claim directly and that the lack of verification barred the claim.

Whether the failure to verify the physician’s report (i.e., absence of a chest x-ray examination) is a fatal defect that precludes the petitioner’s claim for Workmen’s Compensation.
Whether the procedural error in transmitting the notice and claim (through the Office of the Solicitor General rather than directly to the respondent) should prejudice the petitioner’s right to compensation.
Whether, notwithstanding the technical defects, the substantial evidence presented by the petitioner is sufficient to sustain her claim under the liberal construction of the Workmen’s Compensation Act.
Whether the respondent’s failure to reply within the prescribed ten (10) day period constitutes a waiver of its defenses regarding the merit of the claim.