G.R. No. L-43202 - Rodrigo Landayan vs. Workmens Compensation Commission

Manila

FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. L-43202 May 31, 1977

RODRIGO LANDAYAN,petitioner,
vs.
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION COMMISSION and ATLANTIC GULF & PACIFIC CO. OF MANILA, INC.,respondents.

Arceli A. Rubin (CLAO) for petitioner.

Ciriaco S. Cruz for private respondent.

MARTIN,J.:

Petition for review1of the decision of the Workmen's Compensation Commission in R04-WCC Case No. 162523 which reversed the award of P6,000.00 made by the Acting Referee Vivencio Escarcha of Regional Office No. 4 in favor of the petitioner.

Sometime in October, 1966, petitioner was employed as a carpenter by the private respondent Atlantic Gulf & Pacific Co. of Manila, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as respondent Company) with a salary of P8.00 a day for six to seven days a week. In June 1968, petitioner was found by respondent Company's physician, Dr. Bataclan, to be suffering from pulmonary tuberculosis. He was subsequently diagnosed by his attending physician, Dr. Amadeo Jorge, to be sick of pulmonary tuberculosis moderately advanced, active with cavity, bronchiectasis.2His employment with the respondent Company was terminated or June 6, 1968. Since that time, he has been out of work due to his ailment.

On June 29, 1975, he filed his claim for compensation together with the Physician's Report. Said claim was granted by the Acting Labor Referee, Vivencio Escarcha in a decision rendered on October 29, 1975, the dispositive portion of which reads:

On October 28, 1975, the respondent Commission acting on the motion for reconsideration filed by the respondent Company, reversed the decision of the Acting Labor Referee and dismissed the case for lack of merit on the ground that the Physician's Report is not corroborated by laboratory findings or chest x-ray conducted on the petitioner.

Hence, this petition for review grounded on the sole issue as to whether or not a Physician's Report is sufficient to support claim under Act 3428 as amended.

We reverse the decision of the respondent Commission. The Physician's Report3does not require that an x-ray examination or laboratory findings be attached thereto. Their absence in the Physician's Report will not invalidate the diagnosis appearing therein. Moreover, from the attending Physician's Report, it can be logically inferred that a previous x-ray examination was male otherwise the physician could not have arrived at his diagnosis of the petitioner's illness,4as in the case at bar wherein the following appears in the Physician's Report:

With the findings that the illness of petitioner is moderately advanced and active which could easily be determined by means of physical examination, x-ray or laboratory findings is not indispensable. Moreover, the records show that the respondent Company's physician, Dr. Bataclan, was the first one who found the petitioner to be suffering from pulmonary tuberculosis, which findings was the immediate cause of the termination of his services. The respondent Company is therefore estopped from denying the said illness suffered by the petitioner. In this connection, since the petitioner has complied with the requirements under Section 23 of the Workmen's Compensation Act5We find no reason to deny him the benefits provided for the law.

Considering that the total disability of the petitioner resulting from his illness had been duly established, he is therefore, entitled to compensation under Sections 2 and 14 of the Workmen's Compensation Act.6

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING,the judgment of the respondent Commission is hereby reversed and set aside and the decision of the Acting Referee of the Regional Office No. 4, revived and reinstated with the further modification that respondent Company should also pay petitioner medical and hospital expenses duly receipted for until full recovery and to his lawyer the amount of P600.00 as attorney's fees.

SO ORDERED.

Teehankee (Chairman), Makasiar, Antonio and Muñoz-Palma, JJ., concur.

Footnotes