G.R. No. L-43031 February 28, 1985
ELSIE C. ANTIPORDA, petitioner, vs. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, BUREAU OF PUBLIC SCHOOLS and THE SOLICITOR GENERAL, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Elsie C. Antiporda, an elementary public school teacher, contracted an illness diagnosed as “fibroid uterus-cystic ovary” in March 1972 after 27 years of service. She underwent an operation, informed her superior, and was granted leave. She filed a claim for disability benefits under the Workmen’s Compensation Act in March 1975. The respondent Solicitor General, representing the Bureau of Public Schools, received notice on May 5, 1975, but only registered a controversion on May 30, 1975. The Workmen’s Compensation Unit in Bacolod City granted her claim, awarding compensation for temporary total disability and permanent partial disability.
The Bureau of Public Schools sought reconsideration, and the case was elevated to the respondent Workmen’s Compensation Commission. The Commission reversed the Unit’s decision and dismissed the claim. It ruled that the petitioner failed to establish a causal connection between her illness and her work as a classroom teacher, holding that mere supervenience during employment is insufficient for compensability.

ISSUE

Whether petitioner’s illness is compensable under the Workmen’s Compensation Act.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court reversed the Commission’s decision and reinstated the award. The Commission erred in disregarding the legal presumption of compensability under Section 44 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act. This provision establishes that in any proceeding, it is presumed that the claim is compensable in the absence of substantial evidence to the contrary. Since the illness supervened during her 27-year employment, which involved physical exertion and exposure to the elements, the presumption was prima facie established. The burden then shifted to the employer to present substantial evidence to rebut this presumption, which it failed to do.
Furthermore, the employer lost its right to controvert the claim due to untimely controversion. The Solicitor General received notice on May 5 but only controverted on May 30, well beyond the 14-day period prescribed by Section 45 of the Act. This failure constitutes a waiver of all non-jurisdictional defenses, including the defense of non-compensability. Therefore, the presumption of compensability became conclusive. The Court modified and reinstated the Workmen’s Compensation Unit’s award for disability benefits, medical reimbursement, and costs.