G.R. No. L-43204 - Saril vs. Workmen's Compensation Commission

Mila Luz T. Saril was employed as a teacher at To-oy Elementary School in Himamaylan, Negros Occidental.
She earned a monthly compensation of P245.00.
At the time of the incident, she was six (6) months pregnant.

On March 26, 1971, while in her classroom, Mila Saril suddenly experienced acute stomach pains.
She was rushed to Biscom Hospital in Binalbagan.
Mila died on March 27, 1971, with the cause of death certified as “internal hemorrhage secondary to acute enterocolitis.”

Mila’s death was immediately reported by her husband, Rodito T. Saril, to Mr. Bartolome Tranco, the District Supervisor in Himamaylan.
A substitute teacher was appointed to replace the deceased.
On May 14, 1971, Rodito Saril filed a “Notice of claim for compensation in death cases” with Sub-Regional Office No. VII, Workmen’s Compensation Unit in Bacolod City.
Copies of the claim were sent to the Solicitor General and the Director of Public Schools on May 27, 1971.

On July 7, 1971, Assistant Solicitor General Eduardo Abaya sent a letter indicating a “tentative controversion” regarding the claim based on the failure to clearly show that the cause of death was due to or aggravated by the nature of employment.
A notice of hearing was issued on October 14, 1971, by Hearing Officer & Referee Felicito D. Ciocon.
Hearings were repeatedly postponed; in September 1974, Rodito Saril submitted his affidavit along with documentary evidence.
On October 25, 1974, the Hearing Officer directed the respondent Bureau of Public Schools, represented by the Provincial Fiscal, to submit its memorandum and supporting affidavits within five (5) days.
An extension was requested on November 6, 1974, by Assistant Provincial Fiscal Jose T. Solancho, but no subsequent compliance was effected.
On March 3, 1975, another notice was issued to the Provincial Fiscal giving thirty (30) days for submission, which again went unheeded.

On June 10, 1975, after prolonged inaction by the respondent, Rodito Saril moved that the case be considered submitted for decision.
Consequently, on July 28, 1975, Hearing Officer Ciocon issued an award:

P6,200.00 was directed to be paid as compensation and reimbursement of burial expenses to the claimant.
An additional P300.00 was ordered for the claimant’s counsel, Atty. Bernardo B. Pablo.
A fee of P61.00 was allocated to the Workmen’s Compensation Fund pursuant to the relevant provision.

The Office of the Solicitor General, representing the Republic of the Philippines (Bureau of Public Schools), filed a motion to set aside the award, arguing that respondent evidence had not been properly presented.
On November 20, 1975, the Referee denied the motion to set aside the award.
The case was subsequently taken up en banc by the Commission.
On December 30, 1975, the Commission set aside the award on the ground that the claimant failed to prove that “internal hemorrhage secondary to enterocolitis” was causally linked to or aggravated by her employment.

Rodito Saril argued that the claim was not timely or properly controverted by the employer.
It was emphasized that the employer (Bureau of Public Schools) had actual notice of the employee’s death and was given ample opportunity to present evidence—which it failed to do.
The legal presumption of compensability, as provided under the Workmen’s Compensation Act (particularly Section 44), was cited.
Relevant precedents (e.g., Aguedo del Rosario vs. Hon. N. Baens del Rosario; Abana vs. Quisumbing; Maria Cristina Fertilizer Corp. vs. Workmen’s Compensation Commission; Belmonte vs. WCC) were invoked to support the claim.
The argument that the physician’s report showing a “No” answer regarding direct causation was insufficient to defeat the legal presumption of compensability was stressed.

Whether the employer’s failure to file a timely and formal controversion under Section 45 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act constitutes a waiver of the right to contest the claim.

The issue centers on the timeliness and adequacy of the employer’s responses and submissions.
Whether the “tentative controversion” made in July 1971 was sufficient, given that no further evidence was presented by the employer.

Whether the legal presumption of compensability applies to the claim despite the physician’s report indicating that the cause of death (internal hemorrhage secondary to enterocolitis) was not directly work-related.

The issue considers if the employment contributed, even in part, to the development or aggravation of the illness.
Whether the presumption can withstand evidence suggesting alternative causes (e.g., ingestion of contaminated food or water).

Whether the claimant is entitled to the compensation awarded by the Hearing Officer, including additional attorney’s fees.

This involves an analysis of whether the factual and legal standards under the Workmen’s Compensation Act were met.