Case Digest (G.R. No. L-42669)
Facts:
Fernando Macawili v. Workmen's Compensation Commission and Batangas Laguna Tayabas Bus Company, G.R. No. L-42669, January 21, 1985, Supreme Court Second Division, Makasiar, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Fernando Macawili was employed by respondent Batangas Laguna Tayabas Bus Company as a bus driver for twelve years, with an average weekly wage of P61.60 and a seven-day workweek. In 1972 he contracted nephrolithiasis and took sick leave from December 10 to December 22, 1972; he returned to work thereafter until May 7, 1974, when he stopped working and was laid off at age 44.
On June 17, 1974 petitioner filed a claim for disability compensation with Regional Office No. 5 (San Pablo City), alleging disability due to nephrolithiasis aggravated by his employment and alleging that this forced him to stop working on May 7, 1974; the bus company controverted the claim. The matter was set for hearing several times and was finally heard October 12, 1974 by Acting Referee Salvador C. Guevarra. Before the hearing petitioner underwent medical examinations which showed pulmonary tuberculosis (PTB); these reports (including X‑ray and medical certificates) were offered in evidence at the hearing. On October 25, 1974 petitioner was examined by Compensation Rating Medical Officer Dra. Remedios B. Sanchez, who confirmed PTB and recommended benefits under Section 14 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act and that petitioner stop working until his condition was arrested.
On January 16, 1975 Acting Referee Guevarra rendered a decision awarding compensation to petitioner on the basis of pulmonary tuberculosis under Section 14 (a lump sum of P1,346.40 plus weekly payments and ancillary relief, including attorney’s fee under Rule 27). The bus company sought reconsideration and, after denial, the record was elevated to the Workmen’s Compensation Commission for review pursuant to Section 49 of the Act and Rule 19, Sec. 4.
On December 19, 1975 the Workmen’s Compensation Commission affirmed the grant of benefits but drastically reduced the award: it held PTB not compensable, treated the claim as limited to nephrolithiasis, and ordered payment of only P68.64 plus a small counsel fee and administrative costs. Petitioner filed the instant petition to review the Commission’s decision on February 6, 1976.
The Commission and the private respondent argued that PTB was not compensable because it was discovered only after the petitioner stopped working and that the claim was limited to nephrolithias...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- May petitioner recover for pulmonary tuberculosis though he did not specify PTB in his Notice of Injury or Sickness and Claim for Compensation?
- Was petitioner’s pulmonary tuberculosis compensable as work‑connected or aggravated by his employment, thereby entitling him to the benefits...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)