Case Digest (G.R. No. L-42419)
Facts:
Paciencia Vda. de Pongan v. Workmen's Compensation Commission and Luzon Stevedoring Corporation, G.R. No. L-42419, May 27, 1985, Supreme Court En Banc, Gutierrez, Jr., J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Paciencia Vda. de Pongan (through her son Antonio Pongan) filed a notice and claim for death compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act against respondent Luzon Stevedoring Corporation (LUZTEVECO), alleging that her husband, Dominador Pongan, contracted pulmonary tuberculosis (PTB) in the course of his employment and later died from the disease. Dominador had been a stevedore at South Harbor, Manila (Piers 9 and 13) since before World War II, worked mostly night shifts, contracted PTB in 1967, and was treated by the company physician, Dr. Nicolas Bunag; despite treatment he continued to work.
In January 1973 Dominador was admitted to Martinez Memorial Hospital for what the hospital records and attending physician indicated was a cerebro vascular accident (CVA). A chest x-ray by Dr. A. L. Gregorio showed atelectatic right upper lung and a possible Pancoast tumor; the death certificate (February 12, 1973) listed "PTB" as cause of death. Petitioner claimed death benefits and burial reimbursement.
An acting referee, Benjamin C. Almonte, after trial granted death compensation (P4,680.00) and burial reimbursement (P200.00). LUZTEVECO filed a petition for review/motion for reconsideration to the Workmen's Compensation Commission (WCC) en banc, which reversed the referee and dismissed the claim for lack of merit, reasoning among other things that the attending physician's report and x‑ray did not establish...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the WCC correctly find that there was no x‑ray evidence supporting pulmonary tuberculosis as the cause of death?
- Did petitioner establish a causal link between the deceased's illness (PTB or CVA) and his employment so as to make the death compensable?
- Was the WCC correct in dismissing the claim despite petitioner’s evidence and the respondent employer's failure to prese...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)