Title
Blue Bar Coconut Co. vs. Boo
Case
G.R. No. L-6920
Decision Date
Sep 28, 1954
Joaquin Boo, a dryer man, developed tuberculosis due to extreme work conditions. The Supreme Court ruled his illness compensable, affirming work-related aggravation and retroactive application of clarifying laws.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 172776)

Nature of the Case

The petitioners appeal a decision from the Deputy Workmen's Compensation Commissioner regarding a claim for compensation filed by the respondent, Joaquin Boo. Boo claims he suffered from pulmonary tuberculosis as a result of his employment conditions, particularly exposure to heat and temperature fluctuations while working as a dryer man regulating a steam machine for desiccating coconuts.

Facts of the Case

Joaquin Boo commenced his employment with the Blue Bar Coconut Company in 1946. He reported a medical history of being physically examined upon hiring, which showed no disease. In 1948, he sustained an electric shock accident while working, for which he was compensated. By October 1951, Boo was found to be coughing blood and was subsequently laid off due to his inability to work stemming from the diagnosis of tuberculosis. The Workmen's Compensation Commission awarded him compensation and mandated ongoing medical treatment.

Findings of the Deputy Commissioner

After reviewing the case, the Deputy Workmen's Compensation Commissioner upheld the referee's decision, ordering the Blue Bar Coconut Company to pay Boo compensation but excluding the insurance carrier's liability. This ruling prompted the petitioners to file a motion for review, challenging the jurisdiction of the Deputy Commissioner to decide on the claim.

Jurisdictional Issue

The petitioners contended that the Deputy Workmen's Compensation Commissioner lacked jurisdiction, as the statute confers exclusive jurisdiction on the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner. However, the Deputy Commissioner clarified that their jurisdiction was to adjudicate claims, thereby excluding lower courts without removing the Deputy's authority.

Compensation and Cause of Disease

The petitioners argued that Boo's illness was idiopathic and not compensable. The court noted that the evidence indicated that Boo's exposure at work likely contributed to the onset of tuberculosis, asserting that the burden of proof now rested on the employer to show that the sickness resulted from factors unrelated to employment.

Medical Evidence

The medical testimony presented by Dr. Artemio Masangkay, the company's physician, indicated that Boo was initially healthy upon employment and that his work conditions caused significant stress on his body’s resistance, facilitating the development of tuberculosis. Furthermore, a report from the hospital indicated Boo suffered from advanced pulmonary tuberculosis, emphasizing that the nature of his work potentially exacerbated his health condition.

Legal Interpretation of Compensation Act

The judgment emphasized the compensability of conditions t

...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.