Title
Alburan vs. Republic
Case
G.R. No. L-43249
Decision Date
Aug 25, 1978
Driver with work-related illnesses denied due process; Supreme Court ruled in his favor, granting compensation and benefits under Workmen's Compensation Act.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-35095)

Employment Details and Medical Condition

Abundio Alburan was employed as a driver by the Department of Health since February 15, 1955, with a daily wage of P14.66. During his employment, he developed serious health issues, including glomerulonephritis and rheumatoid arthritis, which his physician, Dr. Modesto Villarin, attributed to the nature of his work as a driver, exposing him to various physical and environmental strains. The petitioner experienced several sick leave periods due to his health conditions, with significant time off between 1973 and 1974.

Claims and Legal Proceedings

In June 1974, Alburan filed a notice of sickness and claim for compensation benefits with the Workmen's Compensation Unit, which acknowledged his employment and the nature of his illness. Despite his submission of evidence to support his claim, including medical reports and statements about his work conditions, the claim was dismissed by the Acting Referee in January 1975, citing insufficient supporting documents. Alburan subsequently filed an ex-parte motion to have the case heard, allowing both parties the opportunity to present evidence.

Failure to Provide Due Process

The Workmen’s Compensation Commission affirmed the dismissal of Alburan's claim on January 26, 1976. The petitioner argued that he was denied due process, as he had not been afforded a proper hearing to present evidence supporting his claim for disability benefits. Notably, he sought redress by filing a motion for reconsideration when he became aware that records pertaining to his case were misplaced, indicating a lack of administrative diligence on the part of the Department of Health.

Legal Arguments and Contentions

The Solicitor General, representing the respondent, rebutted claims of due process violations by stating that existing guidelines allowed the dismissal of cases where sufficient evidence was lacking. However, Alburan's counsel contended that procedural norms outlined in Labor Department Orders required a hearing to determine the compensability of the illness, which were not adhered to in Alburan's case.

Court's Analysis and Findings

The Court found merit in Alburan's petition, emphasizing the grave abuse of discretion by the Workmen's Compensation Commission. It acknowledged Alburan's persistent efforts to pursue his claim, including the submission of necessary documents and seeking hearings. The Court also recog

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.