You are on page 1of 1

Manila Pest Control vs WCC

Oct 29, 1968


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.