Case Summary (G.R. No. L-19843)
Employment, Medical Events, and Death
On November 4, 1956, a Sunday, Gulmatico was requested by the shift supervisor to work overtime. On that day, he manually pumped gasoline to different vehicles, apparently because of a power shut-down that required manual pumping. After going home for lunch, he felt stomach pain but reported for work in the afternoon. He then suffered severe stomach pain by seven o’clock in the evening, accompanied by vomiting of food previously taken. The plant physician, Dr. Echeverri, provided temporary treatment, but Gulmatico was later transferred to Avellanosa Hospital for an operation; the operation did not proceed because of a sudden drop in blood pressure causing loss of consciousness. Gulmatico never regained consciousness and died shortly thereafter.
Dr. Echeverri certified that the cause of death was “ruptured chronic perforating gastric ulcer on lesser curvature of the stomach, acute generalized peritoritis, toxemia.” The employer’s physician later certified that on the day previous to the onset of the illness, the patient worked overtime at the request of the shift supervisor, with duties consisting of manual pumping of gasoline to vehicles used in the plant and recording them, with the inhalation of gasoline gas “the whole day,” which offended his respiratory system and induced nausea. The plant circumstances also included irregularity in meal times and emergency overtime work.
Claim for Compensation and Initial Award
As a consequence of Gulmatico’s death, Dominica Luna filed the compensation claim pursuant to law. The case was heard and, after reception of evidence, hearing officer Luis B. Buendia awarded P4,000.00 as compensation and P200.00 as burial expenses.
The employer appealed to the Workmen’s Compensation Commission, which affirmed the award on November 6, 1961, with additional payment of the reglementary review fees under Section 55 of the Act.
Employer’s Jurisdictional Defense Based on Prescriptive Period
In its petition for review, National Power Corporation did not dispute that the sickness and death could be compensable in principle. The employer’s principal contention was jurisdictional: it argued that the Commission could not act because the claim was allegedly filed beyond the period prescribed by law.
The employer invoked Section 21 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, as amended, contending that a claim for compensation in case of death must be filed not later than three months from death, except where the employer has voluntarily made compensation payments, in which case filing may occur even after the time limit. It emphasized that no such voluntary payments were made. The record showed that Gulmatico died on November 5, 1956, while the claim was filed only on December 2, 1958, or more than two years after death. The employer therefore asserted that the claim had prescribed and could not serve as a basis for compensation.
Commission’s Response: Estoppel and Waiver Through Employer’s Conduct
The Workmen’s Compensation Commission rejected the employer’s defense. It held that the employer was estopped to allege that the claim was filed out of time. The Commission reasoned that the employer knew from the beginning that Gulmatico had died. It also noted that the widow had notified the employer, through company representatives, including Dr. Echeverri and Mr. Horacio Pascual, the plant supervisor, who attended the interment of Gulmatico. Further, the Commission considered that the employer filed its “Employer’s Report” only on December 11, 1958, after the claimant had already filed her notice and claim for compensation.
The Commission also emphasized, in a subsequent resolution, that compliance with the requirement to file the employer’s report was obligatory and that non-compliance could be deemed a waiver of the defense that the claim was not filed within the statutory period. In support, the Commission relied on its prior interpretation of the Act in Martha Lumber Mill, Inc. vs. Lagradante, et al., 95 Phil. 434 (June 27, 1956), where the Court had held that failure to submit the required employer’s report of accident or sickness could be deemed a waiver of the defense on timeliness. The Commission also cited Tan Lim Te vs. Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner, et al., 104 Phil. 522, as consistent with its interpretation.
Compensability of the Illness: Aggravation by Work Conditions
Alongside the timeliness issue, the decision treated the compensability of the underlying sickness. It stated that, as a rule, an ulcer was not an occupational disease because it was not inherent in the nature of the work. However, the rule did not control the present facts because the ulcer was allegedly seriously aggravated by the working conditions. The irregularity in meal times, including missed lunches, and emergency overtime work that caused stomach pain or spasm were treated as factors that aggravated the condition.
The findings noted that there was no evidence that Gulmatico had the disease upon entry into service in 1951, but that he began feeling symptoms in 1955, and that the condition aggravated until his death in 1956 despite medical treatment by the employer’s physician.
The plant physician’s certification that overtime on the day before onset involved manual pumping of gasoline, with inhalation of gasoline gas throughout the day, was relied upon to show that the sickness was contracted in the course of employment and aggravated by the irregular and intemperate nature of the work imposed by the needs of the service.
The Court’s Disposition
The Court affirmed the decision appealed from. It held there was no reversible error in the Commission’s conclusions, particularly regarding the employer’s estoppel from claiming untimeliness and the Commission’s view that non-compliance with the employer’s reporting requirement could amount to waiver of the statutory defense.
Legal Basis and Reasoning
The Court’s reasoning adopted the Commission’s approach to the employer’s timeliness defense. It accepted the Commission’s application of the doctrine that the employer may be barred or deemed to have waived reliance on the statutory filing peri
...continue reading
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. L-19843)
- National Power Corporation sought review of an award of compensation and burial expenses granted to the dependents of its deceased employee, Dominica Luna (widow) and her children, by the Workmen’s Compensation Commission.
- The controversy centered on whether the employee’s fatal stomach condition was compensable and whether the claim was barred by the statutory filing period.
Parties and Procedural Posture
- The employer-petitioner was National Power Corporation.
- The respondent tribunals were the Workmen’s Compensation Commission and the relevant company and claimant parties indicated in the proceedings below, including the hearing officer.
- The claimants were Dominica Luna, filing in her behalf and on behalf of her children, as dependents of the deceased employee Enrique Gulmatico.
- The hearing officer awarded P4,000.00 as compensation and P200.00 as burial expenses after reception of evidence.
- The Workmen’s Compensation Commission, through Chairman Nieves Baens del Rosario, affirmed the award with additional reglementary review fees under Section 55 of the Act, by resolution dated November 6, 1961.
- The matter reached the Court via a petition for review challenging both compensability and jurisdictional timeliness.
Key Factual Allegations
- Enrique Gulmatico was employed by National Power Corporation as assistant stockman with a salary of P140.00 a month.
- His job duties included checking purchased materials and supplies, opening boxes, issuing spare parts and other supplies, arranging equipment in the warehouse, acting as stockkeeper, and attending to errands within the plant compound to expedite dispatch of requisition vouchers.
- He often rendered overtime service on emergency cases to ensure repairs so work could continue.
- The employee frequently missed lunch on time, and in the afternoons he stayed until all workers had left so the warehouse could be closed.
- On November 4, 1956 (a Sunday), the shift supervisor requested overtime work.
- On that day, the employee manually pumped gasoline to different vehicles.
- After pumping gasoline, he went home for lunch and felt stomach pain, but he still reported for work in the afternoon.
- At seven o’clock in the evening on the same day, he suffered severe stomach pain with “non-projectile vomiting of food previously taken.”
- Dr. Echeverri, the plant physician, provided temporary treatment, but the employee was later transferred to Avellanosa Hospital for operation.
- The operation did not proceed due to a sudden drop in blood pressure that caused him to lose consciousness, and he never regained consciousness before dying shortly thereafter.
- The physician certified the cause of death as “ruptured chronic perforating gastric ulcer on lesser curvature of the stomach, acute generalized peritoritis, toxemia.”
- After his death, the widow Dominica Luna filed a claim with the Department of Labor, Uigan City’s branch office, for compensation under law.
- The employer later attended the interment through company personnel, and it filed an Employer’s Report only after the claimant had filed her notice and claim for compensation.
Compensability of the Illness
- The Court recognized the general rule that ulcer is not an occupational disease because it is not inherent in the nature of the work.
- The Court held, however, that the ulcer was seriously aggravated by the employee’s work conditions.
- The evidence showed that the ulcer developed symptoms after the employee began work and that the condition aggravated over time until death.
- The findings noted no evidence that the disease existed when the employee entered service in 1951.
- The Court found that the employee began feeling symptoms in 1955, and from then the condition aggravated until death in 1956, despite medical treatment by the employer’s physician.
- The certification of the employer’s physician stated that, on the day before the onset of the illness, the employee worked overtime at the request of the shift supervisor and that the work involved manual pumping of gasoline and recording vehicles due to