Case Digest (G.R. No. L-43027)
Facts:
Consolacion Bautista v. Workmen's Compensation Commission and Philippine National Railways, G.R. No. L-43027, January 31, 1979, First Division, Makasiar, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Consolacion Bautista sued in representation of her late husband Andres Bautista, claimant in WCC Case No. 7601‑ROI; respondents were the Workmen's Compensation Commission (WCC) and Philippine National Railways (PNR). Andres Bautista had been employed by PNR as a switchman since 1945. He applied for retirement on the ground of disability on August 16, 1973 and stopped working, and later filed (on August 12, 1974) a notice of injury or sickness and claim for compensation alleging illness from PTB and rheumatism with an alleged date of accident/sickness of August 10, 1973. A physician’s report dated July 28, 1974 diagnosed PTB, far advanced. PNR filed its Employer’s Report on September 11, 1974.
At the WCC referee level, hearings were scheduled for August 6, August 20 and September 9, 1975. The hearing officer dismissed the claim by order dated September 29, 1975, citing the "repeated non‑appearance of the claimant and counsel" and finding the evidence insufficient to warrant an award; PNR was absolved from liability. Counsel for claimant filed a motion for reconsideration on October 16, 1975, explaining that notices were received after the scheduled dates (and that the claimant had died), and asserting that available evidence was sufficient to decide the case. The hearing officer denied reconsideration on November 7, 1975 but elevated the entire record to the WCC.
On December 31, 1975 the WCC affirmed the dismissal, reasoning that because claimant had applied for retirement and stopped working on August 16, 1973, the subsequent discovery of PTB (referred to by the hearing officer as discovered September 1, 1973) could not be attributed to employment and that findings of PTB one ...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the WCC and its hearing officer deprive the claimant of due process by dismissing the claim for "repeated non‑appearance"?
- On the merits, was the claimant’s pulmonary tuberculosis compensable as an occupational disease and did the evidence on record support an award of disability benefits?
- Did PNR’s late filing of its Employer’s Report and failure to timely controvert the claim bar its defenses, and what effect did the claimant’s death during p...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)