Case Digest (G.R. No. L-47276)
Facts:
Esperanza Buyco v. Hon. Secretary of Labor, G.R. No. L-47276, November 10, 1986, Supreme Court Second Division, Paras, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Esperanza Buyco (claimant-appellant) was employed as a classroom teacher by the Republic of the Philippines (respondent, representing the Bureau of Public Schools) until she took optional retirement under Republic Act No. 660 on August 4, 1968 at age 63. Petitioner filed a claim for disability compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act (docketed W.C.C. No. 11215), alleging that she was afflicted by illness/injury as of August 3, 1968 and stopped working on that date.
In support of her claim petitioner submitted a Notice of Injury or Sickness and Claim for Compensation dated October 23, 1972 (asserting oral and written notice to employer in August 1968), a Physician’s Report dated October 21, 1972 diagnosing “cyst-adenoma, breast-left” (which answered that the illness was not caused by employment), an affidavit (Aug. 25, 1975) recounting a classroom fall on January 2, 1968, and an unverified co-teacher’s certification (Aug. 28, 1975) corroborating the fall.
The Acting Referee of the Compensation Task Force, Bacolod City, on November 14, 1975 dismissed the claim on two grounds: (1) there was no loss of earning capacity because petitioner retired on August 4, 1968; and (2) the illness was idiopathic and therefore per se non‑compensable. Petitioner moved for reconsideration; the Secretary of Labor, acting as ex‑officio chairman of the Compensation Appeals and Review Staff, denied the motion on July 28, 1977.
Petitioner filed a petition for review on certiorari with this Court (Notice of Appeal and petition filed November 3, 1977), moved to litigate as a pauper (granted Nov. 9, 1977), and the case was given due course and submitted for decision after the Solicitor General f...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the failure to file a timely notice of controversion by the employer waive its right to controvert the compensability of petitioner’s illness and leave the presumption of compensability intact?
- Can a claimant who optionally retired on the same day an illness supervened (here, retirement under R.A. No. 660) recover disability compensation for that illness (a...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)