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
 

   
May-1958 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-11219 May 7, 1958 - PACITA SALABARIA VDA. DE SUATARON v. HAWAIIAN-PHILIPPINE COMPANY

    103 Phil 647

  • G.R. No. L-11580 May 9, 1958 - MARCELINO GABRIEL v. GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM

    103 Phil 651

  • G.R. No. L-11231 May 12, 1958 - ROSARIO CARBONNEL v. JOSE PONCIO

    103 Phil 655

  • G.R. No. L-9531 May 14, 1958 - WARNER BARNES & CO. v. GUILLERMO C. REYES

    103 Phil 662

  • G.R. No. L-11578 May 14, 1958 - GERONIMO AVECILLA v. HON. NICASIO YATCO

    103 Phil 666

  • G.R. No. L-11629 May 14, 1958 - CELEDONIO E. ESCUDERO v. ANTONIO G. LUCERO

    103 Phil 672

  • G.R. No. L-10559 May 16, 1958 - IN RE: YU NEAM v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    103 Phil 677

  • G.R. No. L-10657 May 16, 1958 - NUMERIANO L. VALERIANO, ET AL. v. CONCEPCION KERR, ET AL.

    103 Phil 681

  • G.R. No. L-11285 May 16, 1958 - VICENTE SAPTO v. APOLONIA FABIANA

    103 Phil 683

  • G.R. No. L-11924 May 16, 1958 - ISIDORO CEBRERO v. JOSE TALAMAN

    103 Phil 687

  • G.R. No. L-8776 May 19, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO CRUZ

    103 Phil 693

  • G.R. No. L-11539 May 19, 1958 - ARING BAGOBA v. ENRIQUE A. FERNANDEZ

    103 Phil 706

  • G.R. No. L-11305 May 21, 1958 - DOMINADOR P. CANLAS, ET AL. v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    103 Phil 712

  • G.R. No. L-12375 May 21, 1958 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. ALTO SURETY & INSURANCE CO.

    103 Phil 717

  • G.R. No. L-8317 May 23, 1958 - GOVERNMENT OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JUAN ABAD, ET AL.

    103 Phil 725

  • G.R. No. L-10286 May 23, 1958 - LUIS E. ARRIOLA v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    103 Phil 730

  • G.R. No. L-10704 May 23, 1958 - SIMEON TAN LIM v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    103 Phil 736

  • G.R. No. L-11036 May 23, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FLORENTINO TOLENTINO

    103 Phil 741

  • G.R. No. L-11060 May 23, 1958 - A. U. VALENCIA & Co. v. HERMINIA C. LAYUG, ET AL.

    103 Phil 747

  • G.R. No. L-11152 May 23, 1958 - BENITO CO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    103 Phil 750

  • G.R. No. L-11442 May 23, 1958 - MANUELA T. VDA. DE SALVATIERRA v. LORENZO C. GARLITOS

    103 Phil 757

  • G.R. No. L-11504 May 23, 1958 - ELISEO SAULOG v. N. BAENS DEL ROSARIO

    103 Phil 765

  • G.R. No. L-7451 May 26, 1958 - HACIENDA LUISITA v. BOARD OF TAX APPEALS

    103 Phil 770

  • G.R. No. L-10610 May 26, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERNESTO SILVELA

    103 Phil 773

  • G.R. No. L-11361 May 26, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELIX SEMAÑADA

    103 Phil 790

  • G.R. No. L-8190 May 28, 1958 - GONZALO GARCIA v. CONSOLACION MANZANO

    103 Phil 798

  • G.R. No. L-9328 May 28, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AMBROSIO PAUNIL, ET AL.

    103 Phil 804

  • G.R. No. L-10322 May 28, 1958 - GOVERNMENT OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JACINTA ALVAREZ

    103 Phil 816

  • G.R. No. L-10574 May 28, 1958 - PANAY ELECTRIC CO. v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE, ET AL.

    103 Phil 819

  • G.R. No. L-10931 May 28, 1958 - FLORENClA R. SORIANO v. ONG HOO

    103 Phil 829

  • G.R. No. L-10972 May 28, 1958 - IN RE: PERFECTO GOTAUCO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    103 Phil 834

  • G.R. No. L-10989 May 28, 1958 - PONCIANO GACHO v. SERGIO OSMEÑA

    103 Phil 837

  • G.R. No. L-11112 May 28, 1958 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. LUZON SURETY COMPANY

    103 Phil 853

  • G.R. No. L-11271 May 28, 1958 - PAZ TY SIN TEI v. JOSE LEE DY PIAO

    103 Phil 858

  • G.R. No. L-11311 May 28, 1958 - MARTA C. ORTEGA v. DANIEL LEONARDO

    103 Phil 870

  • G.R. No. L-11412 May 28, 1958 - MAURICIA VDA. DE VILLANUEVA v. MONTANO A. ORTIZ

    103 Phil 875

  • G.R. No. L-11427 May 28, 1958 - DIMAS REYES v. FIDEL D. DONES

    103 Phil 884

  • G.R. No. L-11491 May 28, 1958 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. BIENVENIDA JOCSON LAGNITON

    103 Phil 889

  • G.R. No. L-11538 May 28, 1958 - COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, ET AL. v. JEA COMMERCIAL, ET AL.

    103 Phil 894

  • G.R. No. L-11640 May 28, 1958 - CLAUDIO DEGOLLACION v. LI CHUI

    103 Phil 904

  • G.R. No. L-11744 May 28, 1958 - PILAR GIL VDA. DE MURCIANO v. AUDITOR GENERAL

    103 Phil 907

  • G.R. No. L-12196 May 28, 1958 - ASSISTANT PROVINCIAL FISCAL OF BATAAN v. AMBROSIO T. DOLLETE

    103 Phil 914

  • G.R. Nos. L-12214-17 May 28, 1958 - MALIGAYA SHIP WATCHMEN AGENCY v. ASSOCIATED WATCHMEN AND SECURITY UNION (PTWO)

    103 Phil 920

  • G.R. No. L-12222 May 28, 1958 - UNIVERSITY OF SAN AGUSTIN v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

    103 Phil 926

  • G.R. No. L-12289 May 28, 1958 - LIM SIOK HUEY v. ALFREDO LAPIZ

    103 Phil 930

  • G.R. No. L-12348 May 28, 1958 - MARIANO CORDOVA v. GREGORIO NARVASA

    103 Phil 935

  • G.R. No. L-13069 May 28, 1958 - JOVENCIO A. REYES v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

    103 Phil 940

  • G.R. No. L-12287 May 29, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FORTUNATO ORTIZ, ET AL.

    103 Phil 944

  • G.R. No. L-7955 May 30, 1958 - JOAQUIN LOPEZ v. ENRIQUE P. OCHOA

    103 Phil 950

  • G.R. No. L-8439 May 30, 1958 - CO CHO CHIT v. HANSON, ORTH & STEVENSON, INC., ET AL.

    103 Phil 956

  • G.R. No. L-10642 May 30, 1958 - IN RE: ALFREDO ONG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    103 Phil 964

  • G.R. Nos. L-10837-38 May 30, 1958 - ASSOCIATED INSURANCE & SURETY COMPANY v. ISABEL IYA

    103 Phil 972

  • G.R. No. L-10952 May 30, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENIGNO V. LINGAD

    103 Phil 980

  • G.R. No. L-11073 May 30, 1958 - MELECIO ARCEO v. ANDRES E. VARELA

    103 Phil 990

  • G.R. No. L-11374 May 30, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIOSCORO PINUILA

    103 Phil 992

  • G.R. No. L-11444 May 30, 1958 - VICENTE ROULLO v. MARGARITO LUMAYNO

    103 Phil 1004

  • G.R. No. L-11498 May 30, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RUBEN J. RODRIGUEZ

    103 Phil 1008

  • G.R. Nos. L-11531-33 May 30, 1958 - MARIA CONCEPCION v. PAYATAS ESTATE IMPROVEMENT CP. INC.

    103 Phil 1016

  • G.R. No. L-12053 May 30, 1958 - ROBERTA C. DIAZ v. JESUS Y. PEREZ

    103 Phil 1023

  • G.R. No. L-12081 May 30, 1958 - LORENZO LERMA v. VICTORIANO L. REYES, ET AL.

    103 Phil 1027

  • G.R. No. L-12530 May 30, 1958 - CONSOLIDATED LABOR ASSOCIATION OF THE PHILIPPINES v. HERMOGENES CALUAG

    103 Phil 1032

  • G.R. No. L-12567 May 30, 1958 - TAN GIN SAN v. ROSALIA A. TAN CARPIZO

    103 Phil 1042

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. L-11504   May 23, 1958 - ELISEO SAULOG v. N. BAENS DEL ROSARIO<br /><br />103 Phil 765

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    EN BANC

    [G.R. No. L-11504. May 23, 1958.]

    ELISEO SAULOG, Petitioner-Appellant, v. N. BAENS DEL ROSARIO, Acting Commissioner of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission and SERGIO MONTOYA, Respondents-Appellees.

    Ricardo Rosal for Petitioner.

    Toribio T. Bella for respondent Sergio Montoya.


    SYLLABUS


    1. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION; NOTICE OF INJURY AND CLAIM FOR COMPENSATION; WHEN TO BE FILED. — When an injury is apparently unimportant and does not at first warrant the filing of a claim for compensation, a laborer may submit such claim to the employer within two months after he learned that the injury resulted to be serious, and said claim is a substantial compliance with law.

    2. ID.; ID.; VERBAL NOTICE OR RELATED NOTICE, WHEN SUFFICIENT. — While the law requires the notice and claim to be in writing, however, a verbal notice or a belated notice might be good if the employer does not show that he has been actually misinformed respecting the injury. At any rate, failure to or delay in giving notice shall not be a bar to the proceeding where the employer, as in the instant case, had knowledge of the injury or did not suffer by such failure or delay.


    D E C I S I O N


    BENGZON, J.:


    Appeal from an award of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission dated October 4, 1956, requiring Eliseo Saulog to furnish Sergio Montoya with medical and hospital services, to pay him a total of P5,200.00 and to pay regular official fees.

    In 1949 and 1950, Montoya worked as conductor of the Saulog Transit, a common carrier engaged in land transportation by buses, owned and operated by Eliseo Saulog. About the end of February 1950, he began spitting blood and having chest pains which resulted in his hospitalization about April up to November of the same year. Due to physical inability he resigned from Saulog Transit in May 1950. And on September 12, 1952, he filed with the Commission the corresponding Notice of Injury or Sickness and Claim for Compensation. Over Saulog’s opposition, he obtained favorable action.

    The contentions of the appellant may be summarized as follows: (a) the notice of injury and claim for compensation were not presented in due time; (b) the factual findings of the Commissioner disregarded those of the referee; (c) the award of compensation was excessive; and (d) the employer’s liability, if any, should be enforced against Saulog Transit Co.

    Concerning the last contention it appears that on October 24, 1951, Eliseo Saulog sold his entire transportation business to Saulog Transit Co. a corporation; so that when Montoya filed his claim on September 12, 1952, the business already belonged to Saulog Transit Co. Consequently, argues appellant, the latter is the responsible entity.

    In the absence of proof that the sale included this particular liability, there is no legal ground to make this corporation pay. Apart from the question whether such transfer of liability, even if agreed upon between Eliseo Saulog and the purchaser, could legally affect the rights of Sergio Montoya, who had not consented to the transfer.

    But the principal issue tendered before the Commission and reiterated here, refers to the claimant’s failure to give notice of his injury or sickness and failure to claim for compensation within the two-month period provided in section 24 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act. On this point, the Commissioner found that in the end of January 1950, while Montoya stood on his bus punching passenger tickets, he was suddenly thrown down when the driver abruptly applied the brakes to avoid hitting another conveyance; that Montoya accidentally bumped his chest against one of the seats; that apparently the accident had no consequences because Montoya continued working for three weeks; but afterwards he felt breast and back pains and began spitting blood which resulted in his confinement in a hospital from April 1, 1950 up to November of the same year. The Commissioner also found that one day, prior to April 1950, claimant Montoya met Andrés Medina, assistant manager of the Saulog Transit, and informed the latter about his illness; and that when Montoya was first brought to the hospital, Montoya’s mother and brother went to the office of the Saulog Transit to ask for medical and hospitalization expenses, but Mercedes Saulog, (wife of the petitioner) who was treasurer of the organization, refused to extend any help alleging that his illness had not been contracted in line of service.

    In the circumstances we think it improper to count the two-month period from the day claimant bumped his chest, because at that time he experienced no untoward consequences, so much so that he continued working for three weeks. The period should begin to run when he realized or felt that he was sick — that was about the end of February. And from that time to the end of March (prior to April 1, 1950 or on that date) when Medina and Mrs. Saulog were notified, not more than two months had elapsed. If necessary, it may be held that this claim rested on the disease 1 which manifested itself only in the last week of February 1950 — not on the accidental bumping in the previous month.

    In fact, we have heretofore held that "when an injury is apparently unimportant and does not at first warrant the filing of a claim for compensation, a laborer may submit such claim to the employer within two months after he learned that the injury resulted to be serious, and said claim is a substantial compliance with law." (Francisco, Labor Laws p. 940 citing Libron v. Binalbagan, G. R. No. 41475, July 27, 1934.) See also Philippine Manufacturing Co. v. Nabor, 40 Off. Gaz., 9th Supplement p. 164.

    The petitioner disputes the findings of the Commission on the dates of the verbal notices; but we do not feel justified to interfere on such factual question. This, notwithstanding the assertion that the referee’s findings had been overruled.

    Again, petitioner insists that there was no written notice, in violation of section 25 of the Act which provides that "the notice and claim shall be in writing," and shall contain the name and address etc. etc.

    However, section 27 of the Act provides as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "SEC. 27. Sufficient notice. — Any notice given in accordance with the provisions of section 25 of this Act shall not be considered as invalid or insufficient by reason of any incorrectness in the statement of time, place, nature or cause of the injury or of anything else, unless it be shown that the employer has been actually misinformed respecting the injury. Failure to or delay in giving notice shall not be a bar to the proceeding herein provided for, if it is shown that the employer, his agent or representative had knowledge of the accident or that the employer did not suffer by such delay or failure."cralaw virtua1aw library

    Under the above provisions, a verbal notice or a belated notice might be good if the employer does not show he has been actually misinformed respecting the injury. The section may be construed to mean that the notice shall not be considered invalid by reason . . . "of anything else," (which would include verbal notice) "unless the employer be misinformed." Furthermore, even if the verbal notice to Medina and to Mrs. Saulog be regarded as no notice for the purposes of section 25, this claimant may still recover pursuant to the last part of the above section 27, because the employer or his agent had knowledge 2 of the injury or sickness. 3 And also because according to the Commissioner, the employer did not suffer by such failure or delay. 4

    If petitioner should argue that above section 27 applies only to "notice" and not to "claim," the answer is that since according to section 25 of the Act as amended "notice may include claim," any provisions concerning the form of "notice" should normally be deemed applicable to "claim."cralaw virtua1aw library

    Disregarding the tardiness in the presentation of a written notice and claim, the Commissioner declared that Eliseo Saulog suffered no loss from such delay. Appellant disputes this declaration, insisting that had he been duly notified he could have included this claim among the "liens and encumbrances" transferred to the purchaser Saulog Transit Incorporated. Granting the possibility of such inclusion, we still think it does not necessarily imply any damage to herein appellant, because the purchase price would have been correspondingly reduced at the same time. Anyway, as it is not denied that the corporation is merely the "alter ego" of herein petitioner, who practically owns it 5 the point thus raised becomes purely academic.

    If all the above issues are decided against petitioner-appellant, one issue on the matter of compensation must be decided in his favor: it was error for the Commission to require him to furnish Montoya with medical and hospital services and supplies until his illness is declared arrested or cured. We hold it was error, because Montoya had resigned from the Saulog’s services before starting these proceedings.

    But as regards the amounts already expended for claimant’s medical treatment and hospitalization, we see no reason to interfere. There was evidence that such expenses amounted to P2,500.00. Evidently, the Commission deemed such expenditure to exceed "the amount ordinarily paid in the community for such treatment of an injured person of the same standard of living" and in the exercise of discretion reduced it to P2,200.00. (Sec. 13 of the Act.) Neither do we find fault With the estimate of claimant’s total disability compensation:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "Claimant is entitled to 60% of his average weekly wages for the period he is incapacitated for labor but not exceeding 208 weeks and exclusive of the first 7 days. In this case, he has been disabled since April 1, 1950 to the present. Sixty per centum of his average weekly wage which was P35.00 equals P16.20 and for 208 weeks (same had already elapsed), he should receive the total compensation of P3,369.60 or P3,000.00 (maximum prior to R. A. No. 772)."cralaw virtua1aw library

    This computation accorded with sec. 14 of the Act, and there is no dispute as to Montoya’s weekly wages.

    For all the foregoing reasons, the award of the respondent Commissioner is hereby affirmed, except the part hereinabove found to be erroneous. Costs against Petitioner-Appellant.

    Paras, C.J., Montemayor, Reyes, A., Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L., Endencia and Felix, JJ., concur.

    Endnotes:



    1. Caused or aggravated by his work as bus conductor from 4:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. daily. Very little time for rest.

    2. Through the information given to Medina and Mrs. Saulog.

    3. Altho the section specifies "injury" only, the latter word includes "sickness." (See sec. 39 Workmen’s Compensation Law.) .

    4. Written notice was served on September 12, 1952.

    5. About 99% of the stock is owned by him.

    G.R. No. L-11504   May 23, 1958 - ELISEO SAULOG v. N. BAENS DEL ROSARIO<br /><br />103 Phil 765


    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