Title
Saril vs. Workmen's Compensation Commission
Case
G.R. No. L-43204
Decision Date
Jul 31, 1978
Teacher Mila Saril died from enterocolitis while pregnant; employer failed to timely contest claim. SC ruled in favor of heirs, reinstating compensation under Workmen's Compensation Act.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-43204)

Facts of the Case

On March 26, 1971, Mila Saril experienced severe stomach pains during her class, leading to her hospitalization at Biscom Hospital, where she died the next day, with the cause listed as "internal hemorrhage secondary to acute enterocolitis." Following her death, her husband reported the incident and subsequently filed a notice for compensation with the Workmen's Compensation Unit on May 14, 1971. The claim faced initial controversion, arguing that the cause of death was not connected to her employment, which led to a lengthy deliberation on the case.

Procedural History

After a series of hearings and motions filed by both parties, including delays in the employer's submission of evidence, an award was eventually issued by the Hearing Officer in favor of Rodito Saril on July 28, 1975. This award encompassed both compensation and burial reimbursements totaling P6,200. Following this, the Office of the Solicitor General attempted to overturn the award, claiming the government did not receive prior notices concerning the hearing and failed to present evidence. However, the Referee denied their motion to set aside the award, prompting the case's escalation to the Workmen's Compensation Commission for further review.

Commission's Decision and Rationale

On December 30, 1975, the Commission set aside the referee's award, reasoning that even without contesting the claim, there was insufficient evidence establishing that Mila Saril’s death was work-related. The Commission referenced a physician’s report indicating no causal relationship between her ailment and her employment, prompting concerns that the illness arose from factors unrelated to her job.

Legal Issues Raised

Rodito Saril contested the Commission's decision, arguing that the employer did not properly contest the claim nor submit timely evidence, thus waiving their right to dispute the compensation claim. He asserted that the presumptions laid out in the Workmen’s Compensation Act should favor his claim due to the lack of timely employer rebuttals, which constituted a renunciation of their right to challenge the compensation.

Statutory Provisions

The Court emphasized Section 45, paragraph 2 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, which mandates timely notification and evidence submission from the employer if they intend to contest a claim. The petitioner's circumstances provided valid grounds for compensation despite the employer's failure to meet its procedural obligations, which solidified the claim's validity under the presumption of compensability established in Section 44 of the Act.

Judicial Reasoning

The Court asserted that the legal presumption of compensability applies when a workers' ailment or death occurs during employment. It cited previous rulings that reaffirmed that attributabl

...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.