Case Digest (G.R. No. 102300)
Facts:
Norena Tortal v. The Workmen's Compensation Commission and Rodolfo Gamboa, G.R. No. L-43663, August 17, 1983, Supreme Court First Division, Gutierrez, Jr., J., writing for the Court.The petitioner, Norena Tortal, claimed death compensation under the former Workmen's Compensation Act (Act No. 3428, as amended) for the death of her son, Eduardo Tortal, who worked as a farm laborer at Hacienda Celina, E.B. Magalona, Negros Occidental from 1972 until his death on August 2, 1973. The death certificate listed the cause of death as “hypertension cerebral.” At the time of death Eduardo's daily wage was P8.00.
On September 12, 1973, petitioner filed a notice and claim for death compensation with the Workmen’s Compensation Commission (WCC), Sub-Regional Office No. VII in Bacolod City. On September 18, 1973 the sub-regional office mailed to private respondent Rodolfo Gamboa (the employer) a copy of the claim and a blank employer’s report (WCC Form No. 3); the mailing was returned “unclaimed.” The employer, however, did not submit any form until March 8, 1974, when he filed an employer’s report denying that the death was service-incurred or service-aggravated.
The case was set for hearing on July 16, 1974; both parties failed to appear on that date. After both parties later filed memoranda, the labor referee of the sub-regional office dismissed petitioner’s claim for lack of merit and denied her motion for reconsideration. The referee elevated the case to the Workmen’s Compensation Commission for review. The WCC, by decision dated December 30, 1975, affirmed the dismissal, finding that petitioner failed to establish by substantial evidence a causal connection between the deceased’s hypertension and his employment.
(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the private respondent timely controvert the claim so as to preserve defenses under the former Workmen’s Compensation Act?
- Was petitioner entitled to the presumption of compensability such that the burden shifted to the employer to prove non-compensability, and did the employer over...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)