Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1961 > May 1961 Decisions > G.R. No. L-16871 May 19, 1961 - PHILIPPINE COTTON DEVELOPMENT CORP. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL. :




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-16871. May 19, 1961.]

PHILIPPINE COTTON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. THE HON. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL., Respondents.

Lichauco, Picazo & Agcaoili for Petitioner.

Paciano C. Villavieja and Jose T. de Leon for respondent Workmen’s Compensation Commission.

Bernardo M. Gubatan for respondent Rodrigo Sison.


SYLLABUS


1. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION; WHERE TO FILE A CLAIM. — Under Section 1, Rule 16 of the Rules of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission, a claim for compensation may be filed and heard in the regional office of any of the following places: where the accident occurs, where the claimant, or any of them, if more, resides, at the option of the claimant.

2. ID.; ID.; PURPOSE OF THE RULE. — The purpose of the Rule is to foster the convenience of the claimant considering that he is the aggrieved party.


D E C I S I O N


BAUTISTA ANGELO, J.:


Rodrigo Sison was employed by the Philippine Cotton Development Corporation as tool-keeper with a daily wage of P2.50. On November 14, 1957, while inside his office, he spat blood and was given medical attention in the clinic of Dr. Royeca at Lagao, General Santos, Cotabato. He stayed there for six days and then reported for work but instead of being readmitted he was paid his salary corresponding to the days he worked before his confinement. He was also given a pass to return to his home in Lingayen, Pangasinan, where he again submitted himself for treatment to Dr. Gerardo Sison. As apparently his sickness continued he filed a claim for compensation with Regional Office No. 1 stationed at Dagupan City against the company. Notified of the claim the company controverted it alleging that the sickness of claimant was not directly or indirectly caused or the result of his employment as tool-keeper and asked that it be dismissed.

The hearing of the case was originally set on March 17, 1959 at Dagupan City, but upon receipt of notice thereof the company, thru counsel, filed a motion for postponement wherein it asked for the transfer of the hearing to Dadiangas, General Santos, Cotabato, alleging that considering the distance of the place of investigation from the residence of the company and its witnesses it would be very expensive and inconvenient for them to have the hearing in Dagupan City, and alleging further that since it is in Dadiangas where claimant allegedly contracted his illness the hearing should be held in the latter place for the convenience of the parties against whom the claim has been filed.

The hearing officer granted the motion to postpone but denied the motion to transfer the place of hearing, whereupon, the company, thru counsel, filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the cause of claimant’s illness was not caused directly or indirectly by the nature of his employment, attaching thereto the affidavit of persons who knew the circumstances surrounding the sickness of claimant. The hearing officer denied the motion and again set the case for hearing on May 12, 1959 also at Dagupan City.

On May 8, 1959, the company filed a motion for reconsideration of the order denying its motion to dismiss, which motion was denied on May 15, 1959, three days after the hearing ex-parte was held on May 12, 1959.

Upon receipt of the order denying its motion for reconsideration, the company filed a motion on June 9, 1959 asking the hearing officer to conduct the hearing by interrogatories under the pertinent provisions of the Rules of Court. However, this request was likewise denied. In the meantime, the hearing officer rendered decision on June 15, 1959 ordering the company to pay claimant the sum of P1,180.80, plus the sum of P510.00 as reimbursement for the medical expenses he had incurred.

After receipt of this decision, the company, within the reglementary period, gave notice of appeal to the Workmen’s Compensation Commission raising as issues the following: in giving due course to the claim; in not granting the motion of the company to transfer the place of hearing to Dadiangas, General Santos, Cotabato, where both employer and employee resided during the period of his employment; in denying the motion to dismiss and in not giving credit to the affidavits submitted in support thereof; in proceeding with the hearing without the presence of the representative of the company; and in holding the company liable to pay the claim despite the fact that claimant’s illness was not caused by the nature of his employment.

Acting on the appeal, Associate Commissioner Cesareo Perez rendered decision affirming that of the hearing officer with slight modifications. On November 14, 1959, the company filed a motion for reconsideration, and on March 1, 1960, the Commission sitting en banc affirmed the decision of Commissioner Perez by a vote of two to one. The company interposed the present petition for review.

The main theme of petitioner is that the Workmen’s Compensation Commission erred in not granting its motion to transfer the case for hearing to Dadiangas, General Santos, Cotabato, where both employee and employer were residing during the period of employment of the former and in allowing instead that the hearing officer conduct the hearing in Dagupan City for such would work a grave inconvenience to, and would entail great expense on the part of, petitioner and its witnesses who were then residing in the place of their employment. It is contended that the residence of claimant for purposes of the Workmen’s Compensation Law should be taken to mean his place of abode during his period of employment and not any other place he may choose to the prejudice of the employer.

There is no merit in this contention. Section 1, Rule 16, of the Rules of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission provides:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"claim for compensation shall be filed and heard in the Regional Office where the accident occurred, or where the claimant, or any of the claimants reside or where the respondent or any of the respondents resides, at the option of the claimant."cralaw virtua1aw library

As it will be noted, a claim for compensation may be filed and heard in the regional office of any of the following places: where the accident occurs; where the claimant, or any of them, if more, resides, or where the respondent, or any of them, if more, resides, at the option of the claimant. These provisions are clear. They provide for different places where a claim for compensation may be filed for it may happen that the claimant may have a residence different from where he is employed. It may also happen that the accident may occur in a place different from where the residence of claimant, or the place of his employment, is. In any of these cases, the rule gives the choice to the claimant. Evidently, the purpose of the rule is to foster the convenience of the claimant considering that he is the aggrieved party. It is true that if these provisions are carried out to the letter may work inconvenience or some pecuniary disadvantage to the employer, but this situation must have already been taken into account by the Commissioners when the rules governing the hearing of claims had been adopted. And, undoubtedly, the question that was paramount in the minds of the Commissioners when they adopted said rules was the convenience and welfare of the laborer. We have nothing against this purpose since it is in keeping with the spirit of the law.

Petitioner also contends that the hearing officer committed a grave abuse of discretion in proceeding with the hearing of the case ex-parte, or without the presence of a representative of petitioner. This contention is also untenable for the record shows that the hearing has been postponed several times precisely at the request of petitioner. Thus, the hearing was originally set for March 17, 1959, and it was postponed to April 13, 1959 because of a motion filed by petitioner. Then, petitioner filed a motion to dismiss alleging that claimant’s illness was not caused by the nature of his employment, and after denying said motion, the hearing officer again set the hearing for May 12, 1959. And when this date came, and no one appeared for petitioner, the hearing officer heard the case ex-parte, and thereafter rendered his decision. It is true that this decision was rendered after the hearing officer had received the motion of petitioner to reconsider his order denying the motion for dismissal, but this is of no moment for the hearing officer acted thereon after having reached the conclusion that said motion had no merit. In the circumstances, we find that the hearing officer has not committed any abuse of discretion as claimed because he merely acted having in view his duty to act and dispose of the claim with the least possible delay. He merely acted in accordance with the spirit of the law.

We have taken notice of the strong dissent put up by Commissioner Nieves Baens del Rosario predicated on the necessity of giving a party his day in court in every case or proceeding invoking the following passage from Larson’s book on Workmen’s Compensation Law: "there is a point beyond which the sweeping-aside of ‘technicalities’ cannot go, since evidentiary and procedural rules usually have an irreducible hard core of necessary function which cannot be dispensed with in any orderly investigation of the merits of the case", considering the summary nature of the determination of a compensation case. While there is a point in this opinion of Commissioner Del Rosario we are however persuaded not to toe the line considering that the petition for holding the hearing through interrogatories was filed by herein petitioner quite late. It came after the hearing officer had already rendered his decision on the merits. This Court would not have hesitated in giving petitioner an opportunity to be heard had it filed its petition on time, but it did not choose to do so. As the situation now stands we have no other alternative than to uphold the majority opinion.

WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is affirmed, with costs against petitioner.

Bengzon, C.J., Padilla, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Paredes, Dizon, De Leon and Natividad, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






May-1961 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-11793 May 19, 1961 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AMADOR CASTILLO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-11807 May 19, 1961 - COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. CONVENTION OF PHILIPPINE BAPTIST CHURCHES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15764 May 19, 1961 - IN RE: ROBERTO ONG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-15919 May 19, 1961 - CALVIN K. LO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-16871 May 19, 1961 - PHILIPPINE COTTON DEVELOPMENT CORP. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-12073 May 23, 1961 - RICARDO S. SANTOS v. MARIANO NABLE, ETC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-12777 May 23, 1961 - SEPTEMIO CEBEDO, ET AL. v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14343 May 23, 1961 - IN RE: JEW CHONG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-14702 May 23, 1961 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. LELITA JUGADO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14937 May 23, 1961 - MAGDALENA AGUILOR v. FLORENCIO BALATICO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14978 May 23, 1961 - IN RE: LILY BANTOTO COO, ET AL. v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-15740 May 23, 1961 - JUAN CRUZ, JR. v. CRISANTO DIAZ

  • G.R. No. L-15935 May 23, 1961 - SERREE INVESTMENT v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

  • G.R. No. L-16002 May 23, 1961 - LUIS SARABIA, ET AL. v. SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16014 May 23, 1961 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BIENVENIDO A. TAN

  • G.R. No. L-16584 May 23, 1961 - PACIANO M. MIRALLES, ET AL. v. FRANCISCO C. GARIANDO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16778 May 23, 1961 - HAP HONG HARDWARE CO., INC. v. PHILIPPINE MILLING COMPANY

  • G.R. No. L-17113 May 23, 1961 - JUANITO SUAREZ v. DAMASO S. TENGCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-13139 May 24, 1961 - IN RE: TAN CHU KENG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-13407 May 24, 1961 - VICENTE TAN v. MARCELINO SARMIENTO

  • G.R. No. L-9686 May 30, 1961 - FELICISIMO C. JOSON v. EDUARDO JOSON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-11210 May 30, 1961 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CALIXTO MAMALAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-12203 May 30, 1961 - COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS v. FARM IMPLEMENT AND MACHINERY CO.

  • G.R. No. L-12347 May 30, 1961 - HERCULANO GRAPILON v. MUNICIPAL COUNCIL OF CARIGARA, LEYTE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-12449 May 30, 1961 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ESPIRIDION ALIDO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-12808 May 30, 1961 - INTERNATIONAL TOBACCO CO., INC. v. WANG WAN TAT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-13031 May 30, 1961 - JAMES R. BURT, ET AL. v. LUZON SURETY CO., INC.

  • G.R. No. L-13664 May 30, 1961 - CONCEPCION NAVAL, ET AL. v. DOLORES JONSAY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-13768 May 30, 1961 - FLORENCIO DEUDOR, ET AL. v. J.M. TUASON & CO., INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14142 May 30, 1961 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. J. AMADO ARANETA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14152 May 30, 1961 - JUSTITA MANUEL, ET AL. v. FELIXBERTA MANUEL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14300 May 30, 1961 - CARLOS PELLICER v. LAUREANO RUIZ

  • G.R. No. L-14475 May 30, 1961 - SOUTHERN MOTORS, INC. v. ANGEL MOSCOSO

  • G.R. No. L-14618 May 30, 1961 - SANTOS LUMBER COMPANY, ET AL. v. CITY OF CEBU, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-14646 May 30, 1961 - M. BENITEZ, ET AL. v. HERMOGENES CONCEPCION, JR.

  • G.R. No. L-14683 May 30, 1961 - JOAQUIN QUIMSING v. ALFREDO LACHICA

  • G.R. No. L-14802 May 30, 1961 - IN RE: TAN TIAM v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-14852 May 30, 1961 - TEODOSIA NATIVIDAD, ET AL. v. MARCELIANO NADAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14860 May 30, 1961 - IN RE: ZACARIAS G. TAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-15127 May 30, 1961 - EMETERIO CUI v. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY

  • G.R. No. L-15146 May 30, 1961 - MARY DE LA PEÑA v. PENG HUAN LIM

  • G.R. No. L-15173 May 30, 1961 - PARSONS HARDWARE CO., INC. v. DE LA RAMA STEAMSHIP CO., INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15190 May 30, 1961 - PHILIPPINE PLYWOOD CORPORATION v. NATIONAL LABOR UNION

  • G.R. No. L-15307 May 30, 1961 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CONSTANTINO DUEÑAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15482 May 30, 1961 - GUILLERMO GONZALES v. JAIME HERNANDEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15569 May 30, 1961 - EMILIO GALANG v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15635 May 30, 1961 - ISAAC PERAL BOWLING ALLEY v. UNITED EMPLOYEES WELFARE ASSOCIATION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15755 May 30, 1961 - RAMONA REYES v. MARIA VILLAFLOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15824 May 30, 1961 - RICARDO M. GUTIERREZ v. ARSENIO SANTOS, ETC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15991 May 30, 1961 - IN RE: ADRIAN FONG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-16122 May 30, 1961 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EFREN MIRANDA

  • G.R. No. L-16196 May 30, 1961 - ROMAN LICUP v. MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-16280 and L-16805 May 30, 1961 - ANACLETA RIVERA, ET AL. v. FELICIDAD TALAVERA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17358 May 30, 1961 - MOHAMAD-ALI DIMAPORO v. MANUEL ESTIPONA, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 138 May 31, 1961 - CONRADO S. ACUÑA v. ISIDRO DUNCA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-11329 May 31, 1961 - CIPRIANO B. MOTOS v. ROBERTO SOLER, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-12436 May 31, 1961 - LA CARLOTA SUGAR CENTRAL, ET AL. v. PEDRO JIMENEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-12460 May 31, 1961 - MARCOS ABIG, ET AL. v. EUSEBIO CONSTANTINO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-12647 May 31, 1961 - AMERICAN MAIL LINE, ET AL. v. CITY OF BASILAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-12654 May 31, 1961 - SANTIAGO MERCADO v. ELIZALDE & COMPANY, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-12699 May 31, 1961 - BLUE BAR COCONUT COMPANY v. ISABELO S. HILARIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-12883 May 31, 1961 - PEDRO BASES, ET AL. v. FLAVIANO PILARTA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-13016 May 31, 1961 - AMELIA C. YUTUK v. MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY

  • G.R. No. L-13135 May 31, 1961 - ERIBERTO DEL ESPIRITU v. DOMINGO Q. DAVID

  • G.R. No. L-13424 May 31, 1961 - BASILIA F. VDA. DE ZALDARRIAGA, ETC. v. PEDRO ZALDARRIAGA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-13438 May 31, 1961 - INTERNATIONAL OIL FACTORY v. DIRECTOR OF HEALTH, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-13685 May 31, 1961 - QUIRICO CAMUS v. CIVIL SERVICE BOARD OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-13726 May 31, 1961 - LORENZO E. MACANSANTOS, ET AL. v. WENCESLAO L. FERNAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-13786 May 31, 1961 - IN RE: LEE PA v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-13830 May 31, 1961 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEONIDO CADAG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14009 May 31, 1961 - IN RE: SEGUNDO SY CEZAR v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-14522 May 31, 1961 - COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. MANUEL B. PINEDA

  • G.R. No. L-14604 May 31, 1961 - PEDRO TABOADA v. MUNICIPALITY OF BADIAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14810 May 31, 1961 - LAZARO BOOC v. SERGIO OSMEÑA, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14862 May 31, 1961 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. APOLONIO ANDIA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14863 May 31, 1961 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SIXTO ARIOJA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14893 May 31, 1961 - ANGELINA ARANETA VDA. DE LIBOON v. LUZON STEVEDORING CO., INC.

  • G.R. No. L-14917 May 31, 1961 - AURELIO P. REYES, ET AL. v. GUILLERMO ROMERO

  • G.R. No. L-14960 May 31, 1961 - LAND SETTLEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. CAROLINO MUNSAYAC

  • G.R. No. L-14996 May 31, 1961 - XERXES C. GARCIA v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK

  • G.R. No. L-15164 May 31, 1961 - FEARNLEY & EGER, ET AL. v. MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15364 May 31, 1961 - VIRGINIA CLAREZA, ET AL. v. BENJAMIN A. ROSALES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15370 May 31, 1961 - EMILIO DABLEO v. LUZON STEVEDORING CO., INC.

  • G.R. No. L-15521 May 31, 1961 - MANILA JOCKEY CLUB INC. v. N. BAENS DEL ROSARIO

  • G.R. No. L-15562 May 31, 1961 - COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. ST. STEPHEN’S ASSOCIATION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15589 May 31, 1961 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. SATURNINO R. ARICHETA

  • G.R. No. L-15692 May 31, 1961 - ENGRACIA ALARCON v. JUAN ALARCON

  • G.R. No. L-15719 May 31, 1961 - MARCELO SARMIENTO, ET AL. v. PEDRO BELDEROL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15757 May 31, 1961 - ALBERTA DE PASION v. FLORENTINO DE PASION

  • G.R. Nos. L-15827 and 15828 May 31, 1961 - NATIONAL LABOR UNION v. ZIP VENETIAN BLIND, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15924 May 31, 1961 - UDE SOLIMAN v. ICDANG (BAGOBO), ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15958 May 31, 1961 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEON RAMOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15992 May 31, 1961 - PEDRO TY BELIZAR v. FLORENCIO BRAZAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16056 May 31, 1961 - LUZ BALLESTEROS, ET AL. v. OLIVA CAOILE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16097 May 31, 1961 - LUIS ALMEDA v. ANASTACIA MANRILLA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16146 May 31, 1961 - ACTING DIRECTOR, ET AL. v. HERMOGENES CALUAG

  • G.R. Nos. L-16190 & L-16369 May 31, 1961 - LUCIO L. MAYOR, ET AL. v. RAYMUNDO VILLACETE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16222 May 31, 1961 - JOSE H. MENDOZA v. ANDRES ALANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16477 May 31, 1961 - MANILA TRADING & SUPPLY CO. v. MARIANO MEDINA

  • G.R. No. L-16507 May 31, 1961 - JESUS T. GESOLGON, ET AL. v. ARSENIO H. LACSON

  • G.R. No. L-16518 May 31, 1961 - BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16542 & 16543 May 31, 1961 - SEBASTIAN S. TOMACRUZ v. COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16598 May 31, 1961 - FRANCISCO JOSE v. JOSE C. ZULUETA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16780 May 31, 1961 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. MAXIMINO GUMAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16818 May 31, 1961 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARCIANO VILLEGAS

  • G.R. No. L-16927 May 31, 1961 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. GORGONIA VDA. DE CALIWAN

  • G.R. No. L-17049 May 31, 1961 - PAULA RECARO v. NESTOR EMBISAN

  • G.R. No. L-17050 May 31, 1961 - ATLANTIC MUTUAL INSURANCE CO. v. MACONDRAY & CO., INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17081 May 31, 1961 - JAIME HERNANDEZ v. DELFIN ALBANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17252 and L-17276 May 31, 1961 - GORGONIO MIRANDA, ET AL. v. CITY OF MANILA

  • G.R. No. L-17277 May 31, 1961 - LUCIANO VALENCIA, ET AL. v. JOSE T. SURTIDA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17365 May 31, 1961 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. L. PASICOLAN