BAUTISTA v WORKMEN’S COMPRENSATION COMMISSION o Sept 9, 1975 – Counsel only received the notice of hearing by ordinary mail 2 days
ived the notice of hearing by ordinary mail 2 days after
G.R. No. L – 43027 / JAN 31, 1979 / Makasiar, J. / Due Process – When Notice and Hearing Required/
LTLimbaring
NATURE Petition for review on Certiorari
PETITIONERS Consolacion Bautista in representation of the deceased Andres
Bautista
RESPONDENTS Workmen’s Compensation Commission, and Philippine National
Railways
SUMMARY. Andres Bautista filed a disability compensation claim which was dismissed to
repeated non-appearance. Their counsel argues that they were denied of due process as they
were not served with the notice of hearing. SC decided in their favor.
DOCTRINE. The reasonable notice of hearing by service upon him personally or by
registered mail a copy thereof at his last known post office address or if he is represented by a
counsel, through the latter, is essential to ensure observance and protection of an interested
party’s right to a hearing.
FACTS.
 Andres Bautista died while his disability compensation claim was pending review.
 He was employed as a switchman by Philippine National Railways (PNR) since 1946.
 On Aug 16, 1973, Bautista filed his application for retirement in the ground of disability.
 On Aug 12, 1974, he filed a Notice of Injury or Sickness and Claim for Compensation with
the Department of Labor
o He alleged that he is sick of Pulmonary Tuberculosis (PTB) and Rheumatism. The date
of the accident was on Aug 10, 1973 and that his employer was orally notified and that
on Aug 16, 1973 he stopped working. He attached a physician’s report together with his
claim.
 Hearing officer dismissed the claim for compensation due to the repeated non-appearance of
the claimant and counsel and that the evidence adduced were not enough to warrant the
award.
 Claimant’s counsel filed a Motion for Reconsideration which was also denied.
o Workmen’s Compensation Commission:“Since claimant has already applied for
retirement on August 16, 1973 and stopped working on said date, the subsequent
contraction of his PTB illness on September 1, 1973 could not be attributable to his
employment, especially so that on the alleged date that he contracted his illness on
September 1, 1973, no proof of any kind, like xray Report was ever presented. The
findings of PTB far advanced one year after separation from the service could no longer
have any bearing with claimant’s employment.”
ISSUES & RATIO.
1. WON Andres Bautista was deprived of due process – YES!
 Order of dismissal of the hearing officer charged claimant and counsel of repeated non-
appearance on scheduled hearings of Aug 6, 1975; Aug 20, 1975; and September 9, 1975.
o Aug. 6 1975 – Non-appearance is excusable because the counsel’s claim that he was not
notified thereof is not disputed nor does the records show that he was even furnished a
notice thereof.
o Aug 20, 1975 – Counsel was also not notified. Even if Andres was sent a notice, it was
only received by his representative 5 days after the scheduled hearing, when Andres
already died.
the scheduled date.
 From the foregoing, it is clear that the Commission gravely abused its discretion in not
passing upon the issue of denial of due process presented by claimant’s counsel.
 The very rules of the Commission require the giving of reasonable notice of hearing to
each party interested by service upon him personally or by registered mail of a copy thereof
at his last known post office address or if he is represented by a counsel, through the latter
so as to ensure observance and protection of an interested party’s right to a hearing
 Court also notes that the hearing officer tilted is discretion in favor of the employer to the
laborer’s prejudice.
o Records show that respondent Commission was granted at least 5 postponements,
claimant only moved for postponement once and that was even on a joint motion with
PNR.
o This is a foul blow to the social justice clause of the Constitution and its injunction for
the State to afford protection to labor
o Agencies of the government, especially labor agencies, are under obligation to give
meaning and substance to these constitutional guarantees in favor of the working man;
Otherwise these constitutional safeguards would be merely a lot of “meaningless
pattern.”
2. WON evidence is already sufficient to award the claim – YES.
 Claimant testified that before his employment he was stout and healthy, the nature of his
work was rigorous and the place was dusty. This warrant the conclusion of claimant’s
attending physician that his illness of tuberculosis was the result of the nature of his
employment.
 Sec 2. Of the Workmen’s Compensation Act provides that tuberculosis directly caused by
employment, or either aggravated by or the result of the nature of said employment, is
compensable.
 The Commission’s decision that Andres’s illness was not attributable to PTB is erroneous.
o By the very nature of tuberculosis, petitioner could not have suddenly and
instantaneously contracted such illness during the 3-day period.
o Tuberculosis is a chronic infection whose incubation period is 2 – 10 weeks from the
time of infection. It is not an instantaneous disease.
o Also, absence of an x-ray report cannot prejudice claimant’s right for it is not an
indispensable requisite to compensation.
 HOWEVER, since the claim filed is one for disability compensation, and the claim was
never amended so as to include a claim for death benefits nor was it amended to include the
exactdate of Andres, SC limited the award to disability benefits only to the maximum
allowed by law.
DECISION.
Commissions decision is SET ASIDE. Ordered to pay 6K as disability benefits and reimburse
petitioner for medical and hospital expenses.