Manila Pest Control denied a worker's claim for disability compensation benefits after he contracted pulmonary tuberculosis from his job. The Workmen's Compensation Commission ruled in favor of the worker, Mario Abitria. Manila Pest Control claimed it was denied due process but the court disagreed, as the company failed to present evidence at trial. The court found Abitria had proven his illness was work-related given the conditions of his job inhaling chemicals without protection. While Manila Pest Control argued it did not receive the decision, this was due to its own counsel mishandling the case. The petition was denied and costs were assessed against the company's counsel for improper attempts to delay a justified recovery.
Manila Pest Control denied a worker's claim for disability compensation benefits after he contracted pulmonary tuberculosis from his job. The Workmen's Compensation Commission ruled in favor of the worker, Mario Abitria. Manila Pest Control claimed it was denied due process but the court disagreed, as the company failed to present evidence at trial. The court found Abitria had proven his illness was work-related given the conditions of his job inhaling chemicals without protection. While Manila Pest Control argued it did not receive the decision, this was due to its own counsel mishandling the case. The petition was denied and costs were assessed against the company's counsel for improper attempts to delay a justified recovery.
Manila Pest Control denied a worker's claim for disability compensation benefits after he contracted pulmonary tuberculosis from his job. The Workmen's Compensation Commission ruled in favor of the worker, Mario Abitria. Manila Pest Control claimed it was denied due process but the court disagreed, as the company failed to present evidence at trial. The court found Abitria had proven his illness was work-related given the conditions of his job inhaling chemicals without protection. While Manila Pest Control argued it did not receive the decision, this was due to its own counsel mishandling the case. The petition was denied and costs were assessed against the company's counsel for improper attempts to delay a justified recovery.
Fernando, J. It was alleged that on Feb 24, 1967, respondent Workmens Compensation Commission considered a complaint filed against it by Mario Abitria for compensation submitted for decision after Abitria and a physician testified, with petitioners counsel failing to appear. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, praying to present evidence, which was denied. A decision was rendered awarding respondent Abitria Php6000 as disability compensation benefit. The petitioner said that they were not aware of the decision as it was not furnished them. Petitioner avers that they were denied due process. Facts: Abitria was assigned to the Research division, working 6 days a week, and receiving a compensation monthly wage of Php 180. During his work, he was made to inhale dangerous fumes since the atmosphere in the workplace was polluted with poisonous chemical dust. He was not extended any protective device and he was made to life heavy objects. In July 1966, he started to experience symptoms of pulmonary tuberculosis. He spat blood (hemoptysis) and he was diagnosed with pulmonary tuberculosis when he was brought to the Quezon Institute. On cross examination, the doctor testified that indeed the nature of the work involving strenuous physical exertion and other factors such as inhalation of chemicals brought about the aggravation of the illness. Respondent was duly notified of his illness and repeated demands were made for the compensation. ISSUE: WON there is sufficient evidence in support of the claim for disability compensation benefits under the Workmens Compensation Law
Claimant had substantially proven his case and that the
illness was service connected. No valid defenses could have been put up by the petitioner in this case. The claim of deprivation of due process is without basis. The reason why the petitioner was not able to present evidence is because it failed to do so during the trial itself. On the claim that it was not furnished a copy of the decision, it is the fault of petitioners counsel Atty Manuel Corpuz because when such counsel received the decision, he told Gerardo Guzman, the one who delivered the decision to him, that he was no longer handling the case, and that it should be furnished to one Atty Manuel Camacho, and since Camacho was not around to receive the decision, it was left with a clerk working in his law office. Quoted from the case: It is one thing to exert to the utmost one's ability to protect the interest of one's client. It is quite another thing, and this is to put it at its mildest, to take advantage of any unforeseen turn of events, if not to create one, to delay if not to defeat the recovery of what is justly due and demandable, especially so, when as in this case, the obligee is a necessitous and poverty-stricken man suffering from a dreaded disease, that unfortunately afflicts so many of our countrymen and even more unfortunately requires an outlay far beyond the means of our poverty stricken masses. The ancient and learned profession of the law stresses fairness and honor; that must ever be kept in mind by everyone who is enrolled in its ranks and who expects to remain a member in good standing. WHEREFORE, this petition for certiorari and prohibition with preliminary injunction is denied. With treble costs against petitioner to be paid by his counsel, Attorney Manuel A. Corpuz.