G.R. No. L-43663 - Tortal vs. Workmen's Compensation Commission

Eduardo Tortal was employed as a farm laborer at Hacienda Celina, E.B. Magalona, Negros Occidental from 1972 until his death.
At the time of his death on August 2, 1973, he earned a daily wage of P8.00.
The cause of death was noted in the certificate as “hypertension cerebral.”

On September 12, 1973, the petitioner filed a notice and claim for death compensation with the Workmen’s Compensation Commission, Sub-Regional Office No. VII at Bacolod City.
On September 18, 1973, the sub-regional office sent by registered mail both the notice and claim form and a blank employer’s report for completion by the private respondent; these were later returned as “unclaimed.”
On March 8, 1974, the private respondent eventually submitted his employer’s report, controversially stating that the cause of death was neither service incurred nor service aggravated.

The case was set for a hearing on July 16, 1974, but neither party appeared.
After submission of memoranda by both parties, the labor referee dismissed the claim for lack of merit.
The petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied and the case was elevated to the Workmen’s Compensation Commission for review.
The Commission affirmed the dismissal, basing its ruling on the contention that the petitioner failed to establish a causal connection between the deceased’s illness and his work.

Since the death occurred in 1973, benefits are governed by the former Workmen’s Compensation Act (Act 3428 as amended).
Jurisprudence on the presumption of compensability and the doctrine of non-controversion under the old law was central to the dispute.
Previous cases (e.g., Salanguit v. Workmen’s Compensation, Balanga v. Workmen’s Compensation Commission, Enrique, Sr. v. Republic) were cited, establishing that when an illness supervenes during employment, the burden shifts to the employer to prove non-compensability.

Whether the petitioner established that Eduardo Tortal’s death was connected to his employment as a farm laborer under the former Workmen’s Compensation Act.
Whether the employer’s delayed submission of the employer’s report constitutes a valid and timely controversion of the claim.
Whether the non-compliance with the statutory reporting requirements, specifically the failure to file within fourteen (14) days or ten (10) days as required, results in a waiver of the employer’s right to controvert the claim.
Whether the failure to timely and effectively controvert the claim should result in the application of the presumption of compensability, thus shifting the burden to the employer.