G.R. No. 42808 - JANUARY 1989 - PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE CASE NUMBERCASE TITLE G.R. No. 42808January 31, 1989Rosario Vda. De Suanes vs. Workmen's Compensation Comm. G.R. No. 43602January 31, 1989People of the Philippines vs. Antonio Pailano G.R. No. 46807January 31, 1989Mauro Omana vs. People of the Philippines G.R. No. 48066January 31, 1989Director of Lands vs. Kalahi Investments, Inc. G.R. No. 56705January 31, 1989Commissioner of Customs vs. Procter and Gamble Philippine G.R. No. 58797January 31,1989Antonio Quirino vs. Hon. Nathanael M. Grospe G.R. No. 65345-47January 31, 1989People of the Philippines vs. Hermenegildo Ramirez, et al. G.R. No. 66178-79January 31, 1989People of the Philippines vs. John Pelotin G.R. No. 70446January 31, 1989People of the Philippines vs. Vicente Alvarez G.R. No. 70926January 31, 1989Dan Fue Leung vs. Intermediate Appellate Court G.R. No. 72828January 31, 1989Estelita S. Monzon vs. Intermediate Appellate Court G.R. No. 73886January 31, 1989John C. Quirante vs. Intermediate Appellate Court G.R. No. 73913January 31, 1989Jerry T. Moles vs. Intermediate Appellate Court G.R. No. 75082January 31, 1989Jose F. Puzon vs. Alejandra Abellera G.R. No. 75853January 31, 1989People of the Philippines vs. Andres Bugtong G.R. No. 76988January 31, 1989General Rubber and Footwear Corporation vs. J. Franklin Drilon G.R. No. 77116January 31, 1989The People of the Philippines vs. Ferdinand Camalog G.R. No. 78687January 31, 1989Elena Salenillas, et al. vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 79570January 31, 1989Gaspar Medios vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 80447January 31, 1989Baliwag Transit, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. 83268January 31 1989Josefina B. Callangan vs. National Labor Relations Commission G.R. No. 84423January 31, 1989Jose B. Navarro vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 29184January 30, 1989Benedicto Leviste vs. the Court of Appeals G.R. No. 37704January 30, 1989Erlinda Talan, et al. vs. the People of the Philippines G.R. No. 44466January 30, 1989Magdalena V. Acosta, et al. vs. Hon. Judge Andres B. Plan G.R. No. 70149January 30, 1989Eusebio C. Lu vs. Intermediate Appellate G.R. No. 72222January 30, 1989International Catholic Migration Com. vs. National Labor Relations Commission G.R. No. 74423January 30, 1989Eustaquio Bael vs. Intermediate Appellate Court G.R. No. 78298January 30, 1989Wolverine Worldwide, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 29541January 27,1989Carlos Gabila vs. Pablo Perez, et al. G.R. No. 47027January 27, 1989Beatriz De Zuzuarregui Vda. De Reyes vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 50041January 27, 1989People of the Philippines vs. Ildefonso L. Abonada G.R. No. 56457January 27, 1989People of the Philippines vs. Dioscoro Pedrosa G.R. No. 56524January 27, 1989Ramon Arenas vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 79404January 27, 1989Feliciano Bejer vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 79955January 27, 1989Angelie Anne C. Cervantes vs. Gina Carreon Fajardo A.M. No. R-225-RTJJanuary 26, 1989Atty. Himiniano D. Silva vs. Hon. Judge German G. Lee, Jr. G.R. No. 33955January 26, 1989Fortunato Da. Bondoc vs. Court of Industrial Relations G.R. No. 34613January 26, 1989Antonio J. Castro vs. the Court of Appeals G.R. No. 40778January 26, 1989People of the Philippines vs. Arcillo Manlolo, et al. G.R. No. 44715-16January 26, 1989Erlinda Barreras vs. Hon. Gregorio N. Garcia G.R. No. 49410January 26, 1989Dev't Bank of the Philippines vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 51214January 26, 1989Edgardo Doruelo vs. Ministry of National Defense G.R. No. 66807January 26, 1989Republic of the Philippines vs. Melitona Alagad G.R. No. 74246January 26, 1989Mariwasa Manufacturing, Inc. vs. Hon. Vicente Leogardo, Jr. G.R. No. 75256January 26, 1989John Philip Guevarra vs. J. Ignacio Almodovar G.R. No. 75079January 26, 1989Solemnidad M. Buaya vs. Wenceslao M. Polo G.R. No. 75439January 26, 1989Silvino P. Piano. vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 79347January 26, 1989Philippine Association of Free Labor Unions vs. Director Pura Ferrer Calleja G.R. No. 80680January 26, 1989Danilo B. Tabas vs. California Manufacturing Company, Inc. G.R. No. 81816January 26, 1989Natividad Q. Salomon vs. National Electrification Administration A.C. No. 3277January 24, 1989David P. Fornilda vs. Pasig, Regional Trial Court G.R. No. 72306January 24, 1989David P. Fornilda, et al. vs. Regional Trial Court, Branch 164 G.R. No. 78648January 24, 1989Rafael N. Nunal vs. Commission on Audit G.R. No. 83882January 24, 1989Willie Yu vs. Miriam Defensor-Santiago G.R. No. 33425January 20, 1989Procter and Gamble Philippines Manufacturing Corporation vs. Com. of Internal Revenue G.R. No. 42278January 20, 1989Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) vs. Hon. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 48008January 20, 1989Bartolome Macaraeg, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. 49739January 20, 1989Bonifacio Lopez vs. Hon. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. 55457January 20, 1989Filomeno Quillian vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 61167-68January 20, 1989Francisco Benitez vs. Intestate Estate of F. Benitez G.R. No. 66350January 20, 1989Alberto De Guzman vs. Intermediate Appellate Court G.R. No. 67115January 20, 1989Filoil Marketing Corporation vs. Intermediate Appellate Court G.R. No. 74249January 20, 1989Cornelio T. Rivera vs. Intermediate Appellate Court G.R. No. 74679-80January 20, 1989Rosita De Asis vs. Intermediate Appellate Court G.R. No. 78524January 20, 1989Planters Products, Inc. vs. National Labor Relations Commission G.R. No. 83616January 20, 1989Industrial Timber Corporation vs. National Labor Relations Commission G.R. No. 36187January 17, 1989Reynolds Philippine Corporation vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 73835January 17, 1989China Airlines, Ltd. vs. Intermediate Appellate Court G.R. No. 43862January 13, 1989Mercantile Insurance Company, Inc. vs. Felipe Ysmael, Jr., & Company, Inc. G.R. No. 47425January 13, 1989People of the Philippines vs. Metodio Sotto Basiga G.R. No. 51554January 13, 1989Tropical Homes, Inc. vs. Willelmo C. Fortun G.R. No. 53955January 13, 1989Manila Banking Corporation vs. Anastacio Teodoro, Jr. G.R. No. 54330January 13, 1989Julio E. T. Sales vs. Securities and Exchange Commission G.R. No. 66712January 13, 1989Calixto Angel vs. Ponciano C. Inopiquez G.R. No. 66865January 13, 1989Magtanggol Que vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, et al. G.R. No. 74047January 13, 1989The People of the Philippines vs. Graciano E. Geneveza G.R. No. 75016January 13, 1989Perla C. Bautista vs. Board of Energy G.R. No. 76592January 13, 1989Erdulfo C. Boiser vs. National Telecommunications Commission G.R. No. 77298January 13, 1989Angeles Centino vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 79518January 13, 1989Rebecca C. Young vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 78169January 12, 1989Bibiano Reynoso Iv vs. Commercial Credit Corporation G.R. No. 72806January 9, 1989Epifanio Cruz, et al. vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, et al. G.R. No. 74806January 9, 1989Sm Agri and General Machineries vs. National Labor Relations Commission G.R. No. 76761January 9, 1989Assec. for Legal Affairs, Office of the Pres. vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 77959January 9, 1989Radio Communications of the Philippines, Inc. vs. the Secretary of Labor and Employment G.R. Nos. 79123-25January 9, 1989People of the Philippines vs. Emeliano Trinidad A.M. No. P-88-181January 3, 1989Roberto S. Chiongson vs. Mateo Magbanua G.R. No. 78315January 2, 1989Commercial Credit Corporation Cagayan De Oro vs. the Court of Appeals The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc. Rosario Vda. De Suanes vs. Workmen's Compensation Comm.People of the Philippines vs. Antonio PailanoMauro Omana vs. People of the PhilippinesDirector of Lands vs. Kalahi Investments, Inc.Commissioner of Customs vs. Procter and Gamble PhilippineAntonio Quirino vs. Hon. Nathanael M. GrospePeople of the Philippines vs. Hermenegildo Ramirez, et al.People of the Philippines vs. John PelotinPeople of the Philippines vs. Vicente AlvarezDan Fue Leung vs. Intermediate Appellate CourtEstelita S. Monzon vs. Intermediate Appellate CourtJohn C. Quirante vs. Intermediate Appellate CourtJerry T. Moles vs. Intermediate Appellate CourtJose F. Puzon vs. Alejandra AbelleraPeople of the Philippines vs. Andres BugtongGeneral Rubber and Footwear Corporation vs. J. Franklin DrilonThe People of the Philippines vs. Ferdinand CamalogElena Salenillas, et al. vs. Court of AppealsGaspar Medios vs. Court of AppealsBaliwag Transit, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, et al.Josefina B. Callangan vs. National Labor Relations CommissionJose B. Navarro vs. Court of AppealsBenedicto Leviste vs. the Court of AppealsErlinda Talan, et al. vs. the People of the PhilippinesMagdalena V. Acosta, et al. vs. Hon. Judge Andres B. PlanEusebio C. Lu vs. Intermediate AppellateInternational Catholic Migration Com. vs. National Labor Relations CommissionEustaquio Bael vs. Intermediate Appellate CourtWolverine Worldwide, Inc. vs. Court of AppealsCarlos Gabila vs. Pablo Perez, et al.Beatriz De Zuzuarregui Vda. De Reyes vs. Court of AppealsPeople of the Philippines vs. Ildefonso L. AbonadaPeople of the Philippines vs. Dioscoro PedrosaRamon Arenas vs. Court of AppealsFeliciano Bejer vs. Court of AppealsAngelie Anne C. Cervantes vs. Gina Carreon FajardoAtty. Himiniano D. Silva vs. Hon. Judge German G. Lee, Jr.Fortunato Da. Bondoc vs. Court of Industrial RelationsAntonio J. Castro vs. the Court of AppealsPeople of the Philippines vs. Arcillo Manlolo, et al.Erlinda Barreras vs. Hon. Gregorio N. GarciaDev't Bank of the Philippines vs. Court of AppealsEdgardo Doruelo vs. Ministry of National DefenseRepublic of the Philippines vs. Melitona AlagadMariwasa Manufacturing, Inc. vs. Hon. Vicente Leogardo, Jr.John Philip Guevarra vs. J. Ignacio AlmodovarSolemnidad M. Buaya vs. Wenceslao M. PoloSilvino P. Piano. vs. Court of AppealsPhilippine Association of Free Labor Unions vs. Director Pura Ferrer CallejaDanilo B. Tabas vs. California Manufacturing Company, Inc.Natividad Q. Salomon vs. National Electrification AdministrationDavid P. Fornilda vs. Pasig, Regional Trial CourtDavid P. Fornilda, et al. vs. Regional Trial Court, Branch 164Rafael N. Nunal vs. Commission on AuditWillie Yu vs. Miriam Defensor-SantiagoProcter and Gamble Philippines Manufacturing Corporation vs. Com. of Internal RevenueGovernment Service Insurance System (GSIS) vs. Hon. Court of AppealsBartolome Macaraeg, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al.Bonifacio Lopez vs. Hon. Court of Appeals, et al.Filomeno Quillian vs. Court of AppealsFrancisco Benitez vs. Intestate Estate of F. BenitezAlberto De Guzman vs. Intermediate Appellate CourtFiloil Marketing Corporation vs. Intermediate Appellate CourtCornelio T. Rivera vs. Intermediate Appellate CourtRosita De Asis vs. Intermediate Appellate CourtPlanters Products, Inc. vs. National Labor Relations CommissionIndustrial Timber Corporation vs. National Labor Relations CommissionReynolds Philippine Corporation vs. Court of AppealsChina Airlines, Ltd. vs. Intermediate Appellate CourtMercantile Insurance Company, Inc. vs. Felipe Ysmael, Jr., & Company, Inc.People of the Philippines vs. Metodio Sotto BasigaTropical Homes, Inc. vs. Willelmo C. FortunManila Banking Corporation vs. Anastacio Teodoro, Jr.Julio E. T. Sales vs. Securities and Exchange CommissionCalixto Angel vs. Ponciano C. InopiquezMagtanggol Que vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, et al.The People of the Philippines vs. Graciano E. GenevezaPerla C. Bautista vs. Board of EnergyErdulfo C. Boiser vs. National Telecommunications CommissionAngeles Centino vs. Court of AppealsRebecca C. Young vs. Court of AppealsBibiano Reynoso Iv vs. Commercial Credit CorporationEpifanio Cruz, et al. vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, et al.Sm Agri and General Machineries vs. National Labor Relations CommissionAssec. for Legal Affairs, Office of the Pres. vs. Court of AppealsRadio Communications of the Philippines, Inc. vs. the Secretary of Labor and EmploymentPeople of the Philippines vs. Emeliano TrinidadRoberto S. Chiongson vs. Mateo MagbanuaCommercial Credit Corporation Cagayan De Oro vs. the Court of AppealsThe Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc.

Manila

THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 42808 January 31, 1989

ROSARIO VDA. DE SUANES,petitioner,
vs.
THE WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION COMMISSION and THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES (Bureau of Public Highways),respondents.

Dante Q. Barbosa for petitioner.

The Solicitor General for public respondent.

FELICIANO,J.:

The petitioner asks the Court to review and set aside the decision dated 31 December 1975 of the Workmen's Compensation Commission (WCC) R04-WC Case No. 163691, entitled Rosario Vda. de Suanes, claimant versus Republic of the Philippines (Bureau of Public Highways), respondent.

Artemio A. Suanes was a government employee for most of his life. From 1933 to 1945, he served as market collector of the Municipal Government of the Municipality of Rosario, Batangas. He served as a Municipal Councilor in Rosario, Batangas from 1956 to 1959. From 2 January 1964 until 30 June 1970, Artemio was a constructioncapatazof the Bureau of Public Highways (BPH), Batangas Provincial Office. His Service Record1further shows that thereafter, from 1 July 1970 up to the time of his death on 21 June 1973. Artemio Suanes was a constructioncapataz in the Office of the Provincial Engineer, Batangas Province. The certificate of death issued by Dr. Salvacion Altamira of the Magsino General Hospital in Lipa City, Batangas, attributed Artemio's demise to 'Cardio-respiratory Arrest due to Cerebrovascular Accident'.2

On 5 March 1975, petitioner, as surviving spouse of Artemio Suanes, filed with Regional Office No. IV of the Workmen's Compensation Unit (WCU), Department of Labor, a claim for compensation under the applicable provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act (Act No. 3428, as amended). In this claim, the decedent's illness was described as "Internal Hemorrhage due to Hypertension.3Petitioner's claim was referred by the WCU to the BPH which, however, controverted the claim of petitioner. In a letter dated 26 June 1975, BPH asserted that there was "[l]ack of causative relation of the illness alleged in [petitioner's] claim with the nature of the decedent's employment" and that petitioner had failed to comply with the requirements of Section 24, Act No. 3428, as amended, regarding the giving of notice and subsequent filing of claim.

BPH, further, asked the WCU Regional Officeto dismiss petitioner's claim upon the ground that claim had been filed against the wrong party, Artemio's employer at the time of his death being the Provincial Engineer's Office of the Provincial Government of Batangas, rather than the BPH.

In an Order dated 29 August 1975, the Referee of the WCU dismissed petitioner's claim "for lack of interest, claimant having failed to appear for the scheduled hearing despite notice.4Petitioner moved,5on 24 September 1975, to set aside the order of dismissal, denying that she had lost interest in the prosecution of her claim and asserting that she had left her old address at No. 73-J Panay Ave., Quezon City having moved to a new address at 2829 Felix Huertas St., Sta. Cruz, Manila, and that she had left her new forwarding address at her old residence but that apparently no one had received the WCU notice of hearing or that no one at the old address had informed the process server of the claimant's new address.

The respondent Commission denied petitioner's Motion to Set Aside the Order of Dismissal upon the ground that that Motion had not been accompanied by an affidavit of merits setting forth the facts constituting fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence as required under the Rules of the Commission.6

Hence, the present Petition, which was filed on 15 March 1976.

Petitioner claims that respondent Commission erred in denying her Motion to Set Aside the Order of Dismissal, since there was no law which required an affidavit of merits to be attached to her Motion, and that she had a valid claim for death benefits considering that at the time of her husband's death, he was a permanent employee of the BPH and considering further that the compensable nature of his death had not been effectively controverted by the BPH. The BPH upon the other hand, took the position that an affidavit of merits was an indispensable requirement for setting aside the order of dismissal and that, in any case, there was no employer-employee relationship between Artemio Suanes and the BPH at the time of the former's death since he was then employed by the office of the Provincial Engineer of Batangas Province.

Nine years later, on 29 February 1985, this Court issued a Resolution which, after reciting very briefly the facts described above, went on to state that:

We consider first the procedural issue of whether or not petitioner's Motion to Set Aside the Order of Dismissal issued by the WCC Referee was properly denied simply upon the ground that it had not been accompanied by an affidavit of merits.

We believe that this issue has to be resolved in favor of the petitioner. Section 3 of Rule 22 of the Rules of the respondent Commission provides as follows:

There is no dispute that petitioner did not attach an affidavit of merits to her Motion to Set Aside the Order of Dismissal. It scarcely needs to be pointed out, however, that the basic purpose of such a requirement was to enable the Commission to evaluate the merits of the Motion or Petition to set aside the dismissal order. Petitioner did clearly allege in her Motion the grounds she relied upon for setting aside the order dismissing her claim for failure to attend the scheduled hearing: (a) she had failed to attend the scheduled hearing because the notice of said hearing was sent to her old address and not to her new forwarding address and hence was not received by her; and (b) her husband was a permanent employee of the BPH whose death was compensable under the Workmen's Compensation Act. To our mind, the allegations in petitioner's Motion constituted substantial compliance with the requirements of Section 3 of Rule 22 of the Commission's Rules. That petitioner's Motion was not a sworn motion is not a fatal defect in the circumstances of this case. There is no suggestion in the record that petitioner had not in fact changed her address or that she had not left her forwarding address at her old residence. If the Commission felt that an affidavit of merit was absolutely indispensable to enable it to resolve petitioner's Motion, then the Commission should have required petitioner to supplement her Motion with an affidavit of merit or to simply verify her Motion, instead of dismissing that Motion out of hand. We believe that there is here an appropriate occasion for invoking the principle that rules should not be so interpreted as to "sacrifice substantial rights in the sophisticated altar of technicalities with [consequent] impairment of [the] sacred principle of justice,7a principle which is embodied in the Rules of the Commission itself. Section 1 of Rule 10 of the Commission provides as follows:

The next issue to be resolved relates to the legal consequences if any, of the fact that petitioner's claim had been originally filed against "the Republic of the Philippines (Bureau of Public Highways)' and not against the Office of the Provincial Engineer of Batangas Province, the employer of Artemio Suanes at the time of his death.

Once more, we believe that this issue should be resolved in favor of petitioner, in line with the principle which enjoins a liberal rather than a technical view of pleading and procedure in Workmen's Compensation cases. It is true that the petitioner's original claim (on a mimeographed form of the Workmen's Compensation Commission) named the BPH as the decedent's employer. However, in her Motion to Set Aside Order of Dismissal, petitioner designated the Republic of the Philippines. as the respondent, while parenthetically referring to the Bureau of Public Highways, as part of the caption which the Commission itself had adopted in R04-WC Case No. 163691. It is appropriate to recall that the "Republic of the Philippines" or "Government of the Republic of the Philippines" is a comprehensive term which has been defined in Section 2 of the Revised Administrative Code, in the following manner:

Thus, the BPH, which is an instrumentality of the Central or National Government and the Office of the Provincial Engineer of Batangas, and office under the supervision of the Chief Executive Officer (the Governor) of the Province of Batangas, are both governmental offices and both are embraced in the term Republic of the Philippines,' for purposes of the Workmen's Compensation Act. The funds of the BPH and the fund of the Office of the Provincial Engineer of Batangas, are equally government funds.

It must be recalled that the benefits of the Workmen's Compensation Act are extended not only to employees in the private sector but also to all officials and employees of both the national government and of provincial, municipal andotherlocal governments. Section 3 of Act No. 3812, as amended, provides:

The BPH was quite aware of the fact that Artemio Suanes, previously an employee of the BPH, was, just before his death, an employee of the Office of the Provincial Engineer of Batangas Province. The BPH conveyed this fact to the respondent Commission, when it (BPH) notified the Commission through the Office of the Solicitor General of the filing of the claim against the BPH. In a "third indorsement, August 6, 1975' to the WCU, the BPH said:

Since both the BPH and the WCU are presumed to know the law-in this case, the Workmen's Compensation statute including Section 3 thereof-one or the other office or the Office of the Solicitor General, should have notified the Office of the Provincial Engineer of Batangas Province of the filing of the claim by petitioner and referred such claim to that office. Instead, the BPH simply asked for the dismissal of the caseagainst the BPH'for lack of employee-employer relationship" and, worse, neglected to inform petitioner of the asserted lack of an employer-employee relationship between the decedent and the BPH and where the claim should have been filed. In fact, petitioner's claim was denied by the Referee, as already noted, not onthe ground of lack of anemployer-employeerelationship between the BPH and Artemio Suanesbut rather because of petitioner's failure to attend a scheduled hearing and her failure to attach to her Motion to Set Aside Order of Dismissal an affidavit of merits. Both the respondent Commission and the WCU Referee failed to inform petitioner of her error in designating the specific employer of her deceased husband, and in effect waited for this Court to issue its Resolution of 29 February 1985 considering the Provincial Engineer of Batangas as having been impleaded as a party respondent.

In view of the foregoing circumstances and considering particularly that no prejudice was sustained by the Office of the Provincial Engineer of Batangas Province by the misdirecting of petitioner's claim, we hold that the Office of the Provincial Engineer of Batangas Province may be held liable on petitioner's claim.

The respondent Provincial Engineer of Batangas Province, in his Comment dated 8 April 1985, asserts that petitioner's claim against his office has already prescribed.ℒαwρhi৷The ordinary rule is that the statutory right to compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act prescribes in ten (10) years8counted from the time of accrual of the claim, in this case from the time of the death of Artemio Suanes.ℒαwρhi৷Artemio Suanes died, as noted earlier, on 21 June 1973; the court impleaded the Office of the Provincial Engineer of Batangas Province on 29 February 1985, i.e., about twelve (12) years later. We do not, however, believe that petitioner's claim may be so cavalierly defeated, given the circumstances of this case. In the first place, petitioner's original claim was filed, again as already noted, on 5, March 1975. While this original claim designated the wrong employer, we believe that, given the insistent demands of substantial justice in this case, such original claim should be regarded, as we hereby so regard it, as having effectively tolled the running of the prescriptive period. We note that the petitioner lost no time in filing her Petition for Review with this Court on 15 March 1976 when her claim was denied by the respondent Commission on 13 December 1975. This Court was able formally to rectify the erroneous designation of the respondent BPH only after almost nine (9) years from filing of the Petition for Review. Under the principle ofnunc pro tunc,we do not believe that this failure to act earlier on the part on the Court itself may be allowed to prejudice the petitioner. The defense of prescription must, therefore, be rejected.

Turning, finally, to the merits of petitioner's claim, there is no dispute about the fact that Artemio's ailment supervened in the course of his employment either with the BPH or the Office of the Batangas Provincial Engineer. It is well settled that, under the Workmen's Compensation Act,9petitioner is accordingly relieved of the burden of proving causation between the illness and the employment in view of the legal presumption that said illness arose out of the decedent's employment.10The burden of proving non-compensability of the cause of death is shifted to the employer. Respondent Batangas Provincial Engineer had failed to discharge this burden. Indeed, none of the respondents even attempted to present any evidence to rebut the presumption of compensability; all of them chose to rely upon the formal defenses discussed above. But those defenses do not constitute evidence to overthrow the statutory presumption. In legal effect, no evidence was introduced by the respondents to offset that legal presumption. The Court, therefore, is left with no alternative but to rule in favor of petitioner's claim.11

WHEREFORE,the Decision dated 31 December 1975 of respondent Workmen's Compensation Commission is herebyREVERSED.The Petitioner is herebyAWARDEDthe P1,500.00 claimed as reimbursement for the doctors, medical and hospital bills incurred in connection with the decedent's last illness, in addition to any other applicable death benefits under Act No. 3428, as amended. No pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED.

Fernan, C.J., Bidin, and Cortes, JJ., concur.

Gutierrez, Jr., J., took no part.

Footnotes