G.R. No. L-24987 - Central Azucarera Don Pedro vs. Workmen's Compensation Commission

The claimant began working for the respondent company in 1933 as a "palero" after undergoing a pre-employment physical and medical examination.
In 1939, he was assigned as a "fogonero" and continued in that capacity until 1946 when he was promoted to "cabo palero."
As a "cabo palero," his primary duties included supervising seven men tending to seven furnaces, overseeing the dropping of bagasse into the fogon, and ensuring the calderas received the proper water supply to maintain the required water level.
The claimant’s work schedule included working in three shifts weekly (8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., 4:00 p.m. to 12:00 midnight, and 12:00 midnight to 8:00 a.m.). During the off-milling season, his tasks mainly involved cleaning the fogon, parts of the blower, repainting, and cleaning the pipelines inside the tambor on an every-other-week basis.

The claimant alleged the onset of symptoms such as fever, chest and back pains, body weakness, and coughing began as early as 1943.
In 1959, he experienced a significant episode where he spat blood while on duty.
Despite these claims, periodic medical examinations and X-rays starting in 1952 consistently showed that he was in good health and free from any lung ailments.
On July 28, 1961, the claimant stopped working due to the aforementioned symptoms and was soon confined at the company hospital from August 10 until September 2, 1961.
A subsequent X-ray examination on September 25, 1961 by the company physician revealed minimal pulmonary tuberculosis, which was later confirmed by an X-ray taken at the Batangas Provincial Chest Center on December 1, 1961.
The claimant received further treatment from Dr. Numeriano G. Presto in Mangaldan, Pangasinan, and allegedly spent P512.00 on his medical care.

The petitioner (Central Azucarera Don Pedro) challenged the award of compensation on two main grounds:

That the preponderance of the evidence indicated the ailment was not contracted as a direct result of the nature of the claimant’s work.
That the claim for compensation was filed beyond the period prescribed by Section 24 of the Compensation Act.

To rebut the compensability presumption, the employer submitted evidence including:

Testimony from the claimant asserting that as a "cabo palero," his work mainly involved supervising and ensuring proper conditions in the work area, with statements from Dr. Gerardo Manes affirming adequate ventilation and fair working conditions.
Testimony from Dr. Angelina Gutierrez, indicating that without the presence of tubercle bacilli, the claimant would not have contracted pulmonary tuberculosis regardless of his working conditions.

The case hinges on the application of Section 44, No. 1, Act 3428, which establishes a presumption that a workman’s claim for compensation is valid unless the employer can prove otherwise.
The employer had the burden of demonstrating that the claimant’s injury or illness was either not caused or not aggravated by the nature of his work.
The findings of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission noted factors such as the claimant’s repeated night work—which is known to debilitate the body’s resistance—and the nature of his tasks involving exposure to hot, dust-laden air that could facilitate the activation of latent tuberculosis.

Whether the claimant’s minimal pulmonary tuberculosis was contracted or aggravated by the hazardous and physically straining working conditions inherent in his employment.
Whether the evidence presented by the employer sufficiently rebutted the statutory presumption favoring compensability under Section 44 of Act 3428.

Whether the delay in filing the claim for workmen’s compensation should be considered fatal to the claimant’s entitlement.
Whether the delay affected the employer’s ability to substantively contest or rebut the claim under the provisions of the Compensation Act.