ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
April-1955 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-7065 April 13, 1955 - TEOFILA S. TIBON v. AUDITOR GENERAL

    096 Phil 786

  • G.R. No. L-7784 April 13, 1955 - NICOLAS ADANTE v. CANDIDO DAGPIN

    096 Phil 789

  • G.R. No. L-7904 April 14, 1955 - EDUARDO HILVANO v. FIDEL FERNANDEZ

    096 Phil 791

  • G.R. No. L-7851 April 15, 1955 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. HONORABLE JOSE P. VELUZ

    096 Phil 794

  • G.R. No. L-8183 April 15, 1955 - VICTOR DE LA CRUZ v. HONORABLE AMBROSIO T. DOLLETE

    096 Phil 797

  • G.R. No. L-8316 April 15, 1955 - LUZON STEVEDORING CO. v. THE HONORABLE CESAREO DE LEON

    096 Phil 801

  • G.R. No. L-7094 April 16, 1955 - JUANITA MIRANDA v. HON. JUDGE DEMETRIO B. ENCARNACION

    096 Phil 805

  • G.R. No. L-7791 April 19, 1955 - LEE TAY & LEE CHAY v. KAISAHAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA KAHOY SA FILIPINAS

    096 Phil 808

  • G.R. No. L-6871 April 20, 1955 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. BANDALI TAGACAOLO

    096 Phil 812

  • G.R. No. L-7301 April 20, 1955 - TIU SAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. ET AL.

    096 Phil 817

  • G.R. No. L-7318 April 20, 1955 - HELEN GENIO DE CHAVEZ v. A. L. AMMEN TRANSPORTATION CO.

    096 Phil 823

  • G.R. No. L-6508 April 25, 1955 - KOPPEL (PHIL) INC. v. EL TRIBUNAL DE RELACIONES INDUSTRIALES

    096 Phil 830

  • G.R. No. L-7076 April 28, 1955 - ROSARIO and UNTALAN v. CARANDANG ET AL.

    096 Phil 845

  • G.R. No. L-6469 April 29, 1955 - NAVARRA v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL and COURT OF APPEALS

    096 Phil 851

  • G.R. No. L-6740 April 29, 1955 - DIMAYUGA v. DIMAYUGA

    096 Phil 859

  • G.R. No. L-6752 April 29, 1955 - NAZARIO TRILLANA v. FAUSTINO MANANSALA

    096 Phil 865

  • G.R. No. L-6972 April 29, 1955 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MAXIMO SATURNINO

    096 Phil 868

  • G.R. No. L-7054 April 29, 1955 - UY v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    096 Phil 871

  • G.R. No. L-7541 April 29, 1955 - VISAYAN SURETY & INS. CORP. v. LACSON ET AL.

    096 Phil 878

  • G.R. No. L-7550 April 29, 1955 - DONALD A. ROCCO v. MORTON MEADS

    096 Phil 884

  • G.R. No. L-7623 April 29, 1955 - FELICIDAD CASTAÑEDA v. BRUNA PESTAÑO

    096 Phil 890

  • G.R. No. L-7692 April 29, 1955 - PEOPLE’S BANK & TRUST CO., v. HONORABLE RAMON R. SAN JOSE

    096 Phil 895

  • G.R. No. L-8107 April 29, 1955 - VISAYAN SURETY & INS. CORP. v. HON. DE AQUINO ET AL.

    096 Phil 900

  • G.R. No. L-8348 April 29, 1955 - BAGTAS v. EL TRIBUNAL DE APELACION

    096 Phil 905

  • G.R. No. L-6931 April 30, 1955 - STANDARD-VACUUM OIL COMPANY v. M. D. ANTIGUA

    096 Phil 909

  • G.R. No. L-7236 April 30, 1955 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. Po GIOK TO

    096 Phil 913

  • G.R. No. L-7296 April 30, 1955 - PLASLU v. PORTLAND CEMENT CO., ET AL.

    096 Phil 920

  • G.R. No. L-7390 April 30, 1955 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REYES, ET AL.

    096 Phil 927

  • G.R. No. L-7561 April 30, 1955 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ISAAC, ET AL.

    096 Phil 931

  • G.R. No. L-7680 April 30, 1955 - TAN TONG v. DEPORTATION BOARD

    096 Phil 934

  • G.R. No. L-7830 Abril 30, 1955 - MANZA v. HON. VICENTE SANTIAGO, ET AL.

    096 Phil 938

  • G.R. No. L-8017 April 30, 1955 - MANSAL v. P. P. GOCHECO LUMBER CO.

    096 Phil 941

  • G.R. No. L-8278 April 30, 1955 - SUMAIL v. HON. JUDGE OF THE CFI OF COTABATO, ET AL

    096 Phil 946

  • G.R. No. L-8332 April 30, 1955 - JESUS S. RODRIGUEZ v. FRANCISCO A. ARELLANO

    096 Phil 954

  • G.R. No. L-8909 Abril 30, 1955 - JOSE LAANAN v. EL ALCAIDE PROVINCIAL DE RIZAL

    096 Phil 959

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. L-8316   April 15, 1955 - LUZON STEVEDORING CO. v. THE HONORABLE CESAREO DE LEON<br /><br />096 Phil 801

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    EN BANC

    [G.R. No. L-8316. April 15, 1955.]

    LUZON STEVEDORING CO., INC., Petitioner, v. THE HONORABLE CESAREO DE LEON, Commissioner of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission, ATANACIO A. MARDO, Referee, Workmen’s Compensation Commission, and TERESA JAVIER VDA. DE GONZALES, ETC., Respondents.

    Tiongson, Veloso & Simbulan for Petitioner.

    Atanacio A. Mardo, referee, Workmen’s Compensation Commission in his own behalf.


    SYLLABUS


    1. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION ACT; REVIEW OF DECISION OF REFEREE; DUTY OF REFEREE TO REFER CASE TO COMMISSIONER. — Where motion for reconsideration of the order of the referee of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission, granting compensation benefits to some of the claimants was filed within the period of 15 days after entry of the order, and the referee did not amend or modify his original decision but merely reiterated it, it is the duty of said referee to refer the entire case to the Commissioner in order that he may review the case as provided for by law. (Section 49, Act No. 3428, as amended by Republic Act No. 772.) Denial by the Commissioner of said motion on the mistaken belief that the decision of the referee had already become final, is an error which amounts to an abuse of discretion.

    2. ID.; ID.; ID.; MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND PETITION FOR REVIEW COMPARED. — A motion for reconsideration has the same effect as a petition to review where its purpose is to seek a review of the decision of the same referee.


    D E C I S I O N


    BAUTISTA ANGELO, J.:


    This is a petition for certiorari seeking to set aside the orders of respondent Commissioner dated September 11, 1954 and September 22, 1954 entered in Case No. 18045 of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission and to have and order issue directing respondent Atanacio A. Mardo to refer the case to said Commission for review.

    Teresa Javier Vda. de Gonzales, Et Al., filed on April 22, 1952 with the Workmen’s Compensation Commission a claim for compensation by reason of the death of one Maximino Gonzales, who was an employee of respondent Luzon Stevedoring Co., Inc. (Case No. 18045). The company, answering the claim, filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the right of action of the claimants had already prescribed. This motion was denied, and, after hearing, the referee, Atanacio A. Mardo, rendered decision on February 23, 1954 ordering the company to pay the sums of P1,560 and P60, respectively, as compensation benefits and burial expenses to minors Antonio, Purificacion, Leonardo and Natividad, children of the deceased, but dismissing the case with regard to the claim of the widow and the children who had attained their age of majority before the filing of the claim with the Commission. On March 9, 1954, the company filed a motion for reconsideration insisting on its claim that the right of action of claimants had already prescribed, but the referee denied the motion in an order issued on April 1, 1954 wherein he neither amended nor modified his former decision.

    On April 17, 1954, the company filed with the Supreme Court a petition to review by way of certiorari the decision of the referee, which petition was dismissed on the ground that "the decision involved is merely that of the referee, and under section 46 of Republic Act No. 772, appeal to the Supreme Court should be from the decision of the Commissioner." On May 19, 1954, following the suggestion of this Court, the company filed with the Workmen’s Compensation Commission a motion praying that the referee be ordered to refer the case to said Commission for review inasmuch as said referee in denying said motion for reconsideration neither amended nor modified his former decision. This motion was denied in an order entered on September 11, 1954 on the ground that the decision sought to be reviewed had already become final. Its motion for reconsideration having been denied, the company interposed the present petition for certiorari.

    The question to be determined is whether the decision of the referee dated February 23, 1954 had already become final when petitioner filed its motion praying that the case be referred to the Workmen’s Compensation Commission for review under section 49, Act No. 3428, as amended by Republic Act No. 772.

    Said Section 49 provides in part:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "Any party in interest who is dissatisfied with the order entered by the referee may petition to review the same and the referee may reopen said case, or may amend or modify said order, and such amended or modified order shall be a final award unless objection be made thereto by petition for review. In case said referee does not amend or modify said order, he shall refer the entire case to the Commissioner, who shall thereupon review the entire record in said case, and, in his discretion, may take or order the taking of additional testimony, and shall make his findings of facts and enter his award thereon. The award of the Commissioner shall be final unless a petition to review same shall be filed by an interested party. Every petition for review shall be in writing and shall specify in detail the particular errors and objections. Such petition must be filed within fifteen days after the entry of any referee’s order or award of the Commissioner unless further time is granted by the referee or the Commissioner within said fifteen days. All parties in interest shall be given due notice of the entry of any referee’s order or any award of the Commissioner, and said period of fifteen days shall begin to run only after such notice, and the mailing of a copy of said order or award addressed to the last known address of any party in interest shall be sufficient notice."cralaw virtua1aw library

    It is clear from the above provision that any party in interest who is dissatisfied with the order issued by the referee may petition to review the same and the referee may re-open said case, or may amend or modify said order, and such amended or modified order shall be a final award unless objection be made thereto by petition for review. In case said referee does not amend or modify said order, he shall refer the entire case to the Commissioner, who shall thereupon review the entire record of said case. The award of the Commissioner shall be final unless a petition to review is filed by an interested party. The law also provides that every petition for review shall be in writing and must be filed within 15 days after the entry of the referee’s order or award of the Commissioner unless further time is granted.

    In the instant case, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the order of the referee granting compensation benefits to some of the claimants well within the period of 15 days after its entry, and the referee did not amend nor modify his original decision but merely reiterated it. Such being the case, the duty of the referee was to refer the entire case to the Commissioner in order that it may review the case as provided for by law. The referee failed to comply with this duty which motivated the petitioner to file a motion with the Commission in order that such duty may be performed. Respondent Commission denied said motion on the mistaken belief that the decision of the referee had already become final. This is an error which amounts to an abuse of discretion.

    It is true that the petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration instead of a petition for review as required by the law, but in our opinion this is a mere technical error which cannot affect the nature of the motion for reconsideration filed by petitioner for, in effect, its purpose is to seek a review of the decision of the referee. It is therefore evident that said decision had not yet become final when petitioner filed its motion to refer the entire case to the Commission and, hence, respondent Commissioner committed an abuse of discretion when he denied said motion.

    Wherefore, petition is granted. Respondent Commissioner is hereby directed to have the entire record of the case referred to the Commission for review as provided for by law, without pronouncement as to costs.

    Pablo, Acting C. J., Bengzon, Montemayor, Reyes, A., Concepcion, and Reyes, J. B. L., JJ., concur.

    G.R. No. L-8316   April 15, 1955 - LUZON STEVEDORING CO. v. THE HONORABLE CESAREO DE LEON<br /><br />096 Phil 801


    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED