Title
Blue Bar Coconut Co. vs. Lugod
Case
G.R. No. L-12593
Decision Date
Apr 17, 1959
Lugod, a coconut thread carrier, developed tuberculosis due to strenuous work and temperature exposure; Supreme Court ruled it work-related, awarding compensation and medical reimbursement.
laborer
pulmonary tuberculosis
compensation

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-12593)

Factual Background

The Commission found that the respondent was first employed by the petitioner in 1947 as a thread carrier and remained in that position until June 5, 1952. As thread carrier, he received a daily wage of P4.20 on the day shift and P4.24 on the night shift. His work required him to carry coconut threads loaded in a “banera” from the grinder (molino) to the dry feeders, a distance of about twelve meters.

The Commission described the physical demands of the task. The “banera” alone weighed between sixteen and twenty kilos, and when loaded it weighed about fifty kilos more. Upon reaching the dry feeders, the respondent had to lift or raise the loaded “banera” and deposit the desiccated coconut threads onto a platform that was knee-high from the floor. The respondent repeated this process more than one hundred times during his eight hours of work each day. The Commission further found that the temperature in the dry feeders was hotter than in the grinder, so that the respondent endured continuous changes of temperature throughout his working day.

On June 5, 1952, while he was performing these tasks, the respondent felt back and chest pains and general weakness. When he coughed and spat, there was blood in his sputum. The Commission thus treated his illness as having manifested during the performance of his assigned employment duties and under conditions described as strenuous and conducive to respiratory disease.

Pre-employment and Medical History Findings

The Commission found that prior to the respondent’s admission to the petitioner’s service, he was examined by the company physician, Dr. Artemio U. Masangkay, and was found physically fit for work. It also found that on June 1, 1950, the respondent had been hospitalized at the San Pablo Hospital for about one month and four days due to a stab wound about two inches wide, and that the wound had been completely healed by the time of his discharge. In the respondent’s yearly examinations by Dr. Masangkay, he was consistently found physically fit and allowed to continue working.

The Commission emphasized that in December 1951, during a periodical examination, the respondent was found to be a TB suspect by Dr. Masangkay, yet he was still permitted to continue working. After the respondent informed Mr. Smiley, the plant manager, on June 5, 1952 about the pains he was suffering, the petitioner gave him a leave of absence for one year.

The Commission further found that the respondent was again examined by Dr. Masangkay on October 14, 1952, and that he was then found to have an impairment of the vesicular breathing. Because he was under the care of a private practitioner, Dr. Manzanero, Dr. Masangkay began treating him only from July 17, 1953 to August 31, 1954. The Commission found that, upon the suggestion of Dr. Masangkay, the respondent entered and was confined in the Quezon Institute under Dr. Juan T. de Jesus and Dr. Reyes, where he underwent two operations: one for bronchoscopy and another for decortication. The Commission found that the respondent left the Quezon Institute on January 4, 1956.

In support of the diagnosis, the Commission noted that the Physician’s Report of Sickness or Accident accomplished by Dr. de Jesus (Exhibit “B” for the respondent), dated July 23, 1955, stated: Diagnosis: Pulmonary tuberculosis chronic, Moderate, right; Minimal, left, active; Endobrochial tuberculosis, second degree; Spontaneous pneumothorax with fluid, right. The Commission also considered the X-ray examination at the National Chest Center, Division of Tuberculosis, dated August 23, 1955 (Film No. 79390), which the Commission summarized as suggestive of PTB (mod. advanced).

Proceedings Before the Workmen’s Compensation Commission

On the theory that the respondent’s ailment resulted from the nature of his employment, the Commission ordered the petitioner to pay compensation, reimburse medical expenses, and furnish treatment until the respondent’s tuberculosis was arrested. The petitioner resisted by attempting to show that the respondent’s sickness was produced by causes not connected with his work.

The Commission rejected that defense and found it not established. It declared it sufficiently proved that the respondent had been physically fit prior to and during the yearly examinations; that in December 1951 he was found to be a TB suspect; that notwithstanding this condition he continued working; and that on June 5, 1952, while actually performing his job as thread carrier, he suffered back and chest pains and general weakness and he spat blood when coughing. The Commission therefore concluded that the tuberculosis was the result of the nature of his employment.

The Parties’ Positions on Review

In its petition, the petitioner argued principally that there was no evidence to support the Commission’s conclusion and that the respondent’s work was not heavy enough to cause or aggravate his illness. It also claimed that in the five years the respondent worked with the petitioner, he worked only 2381⁄2 days—about one-fifth of total working days—thus suggesting that his labor exposure could not have been causative.

The petitioner also relied on the suggestion of the company physician that the 1952 empyema that treated the respondent might have been caused by infection from the stab wound sustained in 1950. The petitioner maintained that this alternative cause should break the causal link to employment.

The respondent, through the Commission’s factual findings, relied on the described job conditions: repeated lifting and hauling of heavy “baneras,” frequent repetition during the eight-hour shift, and continuous exposure to temperature changes between grinder and dry feeders. He also relied on the fact that his symptoms and the presence of blood in sputum were reported when he was performing these duties.

Supreme Court’s Review and Ruling

The Supreme Court affirmed the Commission’s decision and held that the petitioner could not successfully assert that there was no evidentiary basis for the causal conclusion. The Court treated the petitioner’s argument about the lightness of the work as untenable in light of the description found by the Commission.

The Court reasoned that the respondent’s job appeared not only strenuous but also performed under conditions conducive to lung disease. As thread carrier, the respondent had to haul and lift heavy “baneras” from the grinder to the dry feeders over about twelve meters and to dump their contents into a knee-high platform. The Court accepted the Commission’s findings that wheelbarrows were not used at the time and that the “baneras” were made of steel and iron, weighing roughly fifteen to twenty kilos empty and roughly fifty kilos more when filled. The Court also accepted the Commission’s finding that the dry feeders were substantially hotter than the grinder.

Further, the Court gave weight to the Commission’s observation that, although the respondent worked only thirty-nine days in 1951 and twelve days in 1952 prior to his onset of symptoms, the physical demands were such that he had to handle the “banera” and transport it about one hundred times a day, working eight hours, which the Commission computed as about five thousand one hundred times during the relevant period. The Court held that these circumstances supported the Commission’s conclusion that the respondent’s efforts in dragging and lifting the “banera,” coupled with unavoidable exposure to continuous temperature changes, contributed to lowering his resistance, thereby setting in motion tuberculosis that might have remained latent and inactive but for his employment.

On the petitioner’s theory that the stab wound led to the later empyema, the Court stated that little importance could be given to the company physician’s suggestion. It reasoned that the doctor admitted empyema could be caused by tuberculosis. The Court also noted that the respondent was examined before admission and yearly thereafter until 1951 and was always found in good health. Only in the last examination was he found to have “coarse vesicular breathing” in the left lung. Even then, the respondent was not separated from service and was allowed to continue working.

The Court held that, considering the respondent’s heavy task, the onset of symptoms while he was performing his work, and the absence of any showing that prior to feeling chest pains and spitting blood he already suffered from advanced tuberculosis, the natural and reasonable inference was that his disability was either an immediate result of the nature of his employment or caused by a sickness that was then latent but aggravated by his work and therefore compensable.

The Supreme Court invoked the established policy of liberal construction of the Workmen’s Compensation Law in favor of the laborer, citing Ramos vs. Poblete and Jarin, 73 Phil., 241, and Francisco vs. Consing, 63 Phil., 354, and resolved doubts in favor of compensation. It therefore affirmed the Commission’s decision and assessed costs against the petitioner.

Legal Basis and Reasoning

The Court’s analysis rested on the evidentiary sufficiency of the Commission’s factual findings and on the legal policy governing compensability under the Workmen’s Compensation Law. It treated the Commission’s conclu

...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.

About Privacy Terms