Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1961 > November 1961 Decisions > G.R. No. L-16438 November 29, 1961 - PEDRO BASAYSAY v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COM., ET AL:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-16438. November 29, 1961.]

PEDRO BASAYSAY, Petitioner, v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION and ELIZALDE PAINT & OIL FACTORY, INC., Respondents.

Luis R. Lara, Jr. for Petitioner.

Jose T. de Leon and B. C. Arcinas for Respondent.


SYLLABUS


1. APPEAL AND ERROR; DECISION OF WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION APPEALABLE TO SUPREME COURT IN THE SAME MANNER AS THOSE OF THE COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS. — Pursuant to section 46 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act (Act No. 3428, as amended), decisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission shall be "subject to appeal to the Supreme Court, in the same manner . . . provided by law and by rules of court for appeal from the Court of Industrial Relations . . . . Upon the other hand, an award, order or decision of the Court of Industrial Relations may be appealed by certiorari, which appeal "shall be perfected by filing with said court a notice of appeal and with the Supreme Court a petition for certiorari" which may raise "only questions of law."cralaw virtua1aw library

2. ID.; FINDINGS OF FACT; WHEN THEY MAY BE REVIEWED BY THE SUPREME COURT. — In appeals by certiorari, the findings of fact made in the decision appealed from will not be reviewed by the Supreme Court, unless there has been a grave abuse of discretion in making said findings, by reason of the total absence of competent evidence in support thereof. (Ang Tibay, v. Court of Industrial Relations, 69 Phil., 635; Laguna Tayabas Bus Co., v. Consunto, 108 Phil., 62; Union of the Philippines Education Employees [NLU] v. Philippine Education co., 91 Phil., 93).

3. ID.; EVIDENCE; ASCERTAINMENT OF WEIGHT AND CREDIBILITY BEYOND THE PROVINCE OF THE SUPREME COURT IN APPEALS BY CERTIORARI. — The tasks of ascertaining the credibility and weight of conflicting evidence is beyond the province of the Supreme Court in appeals by certiorari. (Batangas Transportation Co., v. Rivera, 91 Phil., 93.)


D E C I S I O N


CONCEPCION, J.:


Appeal by certiorari from a decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission dismissing a claim for compensation filed by petitioner Pedro Basaysay against respondent Elizalde Paint & Oil Factory, Inc.

The main facts are not disputed. They are set forth in the decision appealed from, from which we quote:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"This case involves a laborer, Pedro Basaysay, the claimant, who, during the period of his employment in the respondent company contracted tuberculosis for which he was hospitalized and treated. He was first taken to the Singian Clinic on November 17, 1952 and when Dr. Conrado Lorenzo, the company consultant, discovered that he was afflicted with active minimal pulmonary tuberculosis, he had the claimant transferred to the Hospital de Santiago. He was twice hospitalized there, the first from November 24, 1952 to July 7, 1953 for his P.T.B., and the second, from September 29, 1956 to August 1, 1957 for pleurisy with effusion. The respondent not only defrayed all expenses for medical and hospital services, but also paid the claimant his full wages during the two periods of disability. He was discharged from the services on January 2, 1958.

"The parties stipulated on practically all material facts of the case concerning the period of claimant’s employment, his average weekly wage, the extent of his hospitalization, and the payment to him of full wages during the period of disability. The only issue they seek to resolve is whether or not claimant’s P.T.B. is traceable to his employment.

"Respondent, however, in its petition for review, contends that the ailment suffered by the claimant during his employment was already arrested on the last day of his work on January 2, 1958. If this be so, then there would be no need to determine whether or not the same was service-connects, for if the ailment was not traceable to the employment, the respondent should be commended for the care and treatment of its worker far beyond what is imposed upon it by law and its contractual obligations. On the other hand, if claimant’s P.T.B. was in fact the direct result of the employment or aggravated by it, the respondent should be declared as having already complied with its obligation, by virtue of the payment of claimant’s wages and the medical and hospital expenses incurred by him during the period of his disability.

"The essential question to be resolved in this case, therefore, is whether or not claimant’s tuberculosis was already arrested on his last day of work, because upon this point hinges the determination of whether claimant is entitled to medical and hospital services after his discharge from employment on January 2, 1958."cralaw virtua1aw library

The hearing officer of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission resolved the question in the negative and, accordingly, rendered a decision, dated May 13, 1959, which, as amended by an order of the same officer of June 2, 1959, sentenced respondent:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"1. To pay claimant Pedro Basaysay, thru this Office, the amount of TWO THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED EIGHTY THREE PESOS (P2,183.00) corresponding to expenses incurred by him in the treatment of his ailment, pursuant to Section 13 of Act 3428, as amended, covering the period from March 1, 1958 to April 30, 1959.

"2. To pay this Office the sum of P31.00 as fees, and beginning May 16, 1959 an additional fee of P1.00 for every P100.00 additional award to the herein claimant until the amount of P41.00 is reached."cralaw virtua1aw library

A petition for review and, subsequently, a motion for reconsideration having been filed by respondent, decision was rendered by Hon. Jose Sanchez, Associate Commissioner of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission, reversing the aforementioned amended decision of the hearing officer, and, consequently, dismissing petitioner’s claim. A reconsideration of said decision of Associate Commissioner Sanchez having been unanimously denied by the Commission en banc, petitioner interposed this appeal by certiorari.

As stated in the decision appealed from, the main issue is whether or not petitioner’s illness had already been arrested when he was discharged from employment on January 2, 1958. The decision appealed from decided the issue in the affirmative, relying principally upon the testimony of Dr. Conrado Lorenzo, to which, petitioner maintains, the Workmen’s Compensation Commission should not have given "weight", because Dr. Lorenzo is respondent’s consultant and witness in this case. Pursuant, however, to section 46 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act (Act No. 3428, as amended), decisions of the Workmen’s Compensations shall be "subject to appeal to the Supreme Court, in the same manner . . . provided by law and by rules of court for appeal from the Court of Industrial Relations . . .." Upon the other hand, an award, order or decision of the Court of Industrial Relations may be appealed by certiorari, which appeal "shall be perfected by filing with said court a notice of appeal and with the Supreme Court a petition for certiorari" which may raise "only questions of law." 1 It is well settled that in appeals by certiorari, such as the one we have before us, the findings of fact made in the decision appealed from will not be reviewed by this Court, unless there has been a grave abuse of discretion in making said findings, by reason of the total absence of competent evidence in support thereof. 2 Such competent evidence — which, to our mind, is, also, substantial — in support of the finding contested in the case at bar admittedly exists, petitioner’s contention being merely that said evidence (Dr. Lorenzo’s testimony) should not have been given credence. The task of ascertaining the credibility and weight of conflicting evidence, is, however, beyond the province of our authority in appeals by certiorari. 3 Consequently, petitioner’s contention is untenable.

WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby affirmed, without costs. It is so ordered.

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

Barrera, J., took no part.

Endnotes:



1. Commonwealth Act No. 103, sections 14 and 15; Rule 44, sections 1 and 2, Rules of Court; Elks Club v. Rovira, 80 Phil., 212; Philippine Refining Co. Workers Union v. Philippine Refining Co., 80 Phil. 533; Kaisahan Ng Mga Mangagawa sa Kahoy sa Pilipinas v. Gotamco Saw Mill, 80 Phil., 521; Leyte Land Transportation Co. v. Leyte Farmers and Laborers Union, 80 Phil., 842; Kaisahan Ng Mga Mangagawa sa Kahoy sa Filipinas v. Court of Industrial Relations, 81 Phil., 566; Operators Incorporated v. Jose, 99 Phil., 893; 52 Off. Gaz., 7268; Rex Taxicab Co. v. Court of Industrial Relations, 40 Off. Gaz., 137; Bardwill Brothers v. Phil. Labor Union, 40 Off. Gaz., 186; Phil. Newspaper Guild v. Evening News, L-2604, April 29, 1950; Phil. Education Co., Inc. v. Court of Industrial Relations, L-5679, November 28, 1953; Dee C. Chuan v. Court of Industrial Relations, L-2548, January 28, 1950; Marcelo Rubber v. Court of Industrial Relations, L-5735 & L-5747, October 29, 1953; Atok-Big Wedge Mining Co., Inc. v. Atok-Big Wedge Mutual Benefit Association, L-5594, May 15, 1953; Flores v. Pingol, L-1497-98, April 16, 1955.

2. Ang Tibay v. Court of Industrial Relations, 69 Phil. 635; Laguna Tayabas Bus Co. v. Consunto, L-12726, May 20, 1960; Union of the Philippine Education Employees [NLU] v. Philippine Education Co., L-4423, March 31, 1952.

3. PAL v. PAL Employees Association, L-8197, October 31, 1958; Donato v. Phil. Marine Officers’ Association, L-12506, May 18, 1959; UP Employees’ Association v. Dept. and Bazaar Free Workers’ Union, L-9168, October 18, 1956; NLU v. Dinglasan, L-7945, March 23, 1956; Madrigal Shipping Co. v. N. Baens del Rosario, L-13130, October 31, 1959; St. Thomas Aquinas Academy v. WCC, L-12297, April 22, 1955; NLU v. Sta. Ana, L-9987, April 29, 1957; Batangas Transportation Co. v. Rivera, L-14427, August 29, 1960.




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






November-1961 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-15747 November 3, 1961 - VICTORIANO GUNDRAN, ET AL v. RED LINE TRANS., CO. INC.

  • G.R. No. L-16194 November 3, 1961 - VICENTE BASA v. ANTONIO V. ESCAÑO

  • G.R. No. L-14113 November 21, 1961 - JOSEPHINE COTTON vs HON. NATIVIDAD ALMEDA-LOPEZ

  • G.R. No. L-18255 November 21, 1961 - JOSE T. GONZALES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL

  • Adm. Case No. 504 November 29, 1961 - EUFROSINO L. RAMOS v. EUGENIO P. MICULOB

  • G.R. Nos. L-12306-7 November 29, 1961 - ROSA L. VDA. DE FARIÑAS v. ESTATE OF FLORENCIO P. BUAN

  • G.R. No. L-14675 November 29, 1961 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AGUSTIN TENGYAO

  • G.R. No. L-15134 November 29, 1961 - CITY OF MANILA v. HIGINO B. MACADAEG, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-15143 November 29, 1961 - EULOGIO RODRIGUEZ, SR. v. JUDGE WENCESLAO L. FERNAN, ETC., ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-15383 November 29, 1961 - MAXIMA C. DIZON v. JOSE ARRASTIA

  • G.R. No. L-15518 November 29, 1961 - IN RE: NGO BUN HO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-15559 November 29, 1961 - CEFERINO E PAREDES v. FELIX V. BORJA, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-15674 November 29, 1961 - MANUEL REGALADO, ET AL. v. PROVINCIAL CONSTABULARY COMMANDER OF NEGROS OCC.

  • G.R. No. L-15725 November 29, 1961 - PAULINO V. NERA v. FELIPE L. VACANTE, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-15776 November 29, 1961 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ADOLFO SAEZ

  • G.R. No. L-15922 November 29, 1961 - C. F. CALANOC v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

  • G.R. No. L-16085 November 29, 1961 - AMADA LOURDES LERMA GARCIA, ETC. v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-16155-57 November 29, 1961 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. YU GO KEE, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-16308 November 29, 1961 - FELICISIMA ORIA, ET AL v. BASILIO MARAVILLA, JR.

  • G.R. No. L-16438 November 29, 1961 - PEDRO BASAYSAY v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COM., ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-16510 November 29, 1961 - FILEMON AGUILAR v. VALERlANO MIRANDA

  • G.R. No. L-16512 November 29, 1961 - EVERLASTING PICTURES, INC., ET AL. v. F. A. FUENTES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16517 November 29, 1961 - IN RE: GERARDO YU v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-16553 November 29, 1961 - LEON DE JESUS ETC., ET AL. v. EUSEBIA DE JESUS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16573 November 29, 1961 - INSURANCE CO., OF NORTH AMERICA v. MANILA PORT SERVICE, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-16582 November 29, 1961 - LORETA LERIO v. CONRADO ALVAREZ

  • G.R. No. L-16822 November 29, 1961 - MARCOS ALIDO v. FAUSTINO ALAR

  • G.R. No. L-16849 November 29, 1961 - JOSE S. FRANCISCO, ET AL. v. TIMOTEO CERTEZA, SR., ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-16948 November 29, 1961 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MAMERTO CALLANTA

  • G.R. No. L-16980 November 29, 1961 - IN RE: ARSENIO G. PE v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-17331 November 29, 1961 - INSURANCE CO., OF NORTH AMERICA v. MANILA PORT SERVICE, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-17332 November 29, 1961 - JUSTO BALETE v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-17686 November 29, 1961 - JUANITA R. DOMINGO v. HON. DIONISIO DE LEON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-12134 November 30, 1961 - CONSUELO P. BORJA v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-15126 November 30, 1961 - VICENTE R. DE OCAMPO & CO. v. ANITA GATCHALlAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15295 November 30, 1961 - NATIONAL POWER CORP. v. IGNACIO VALERA, ETC., ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-16648 November 30, 1961 - CENONA CAPA, ET AL v. JUDGE PATRICIO C. CENIZA, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-16654 November 30, 1961 - MARIA DY, ET AL v. BAUTISTA KUIZON

  • G.R. No. L-16826 November 30, 1961 - O’RACCA BUILDING TENANTS ASSO., INC. v. FILOMENO C. KINTANAR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16876 November 30, 1961 - ABELARDO APORTADERA v. MANUEL C. SOTTO

  • G.R. No. L-17086 November 30, 1961 - LUZON LABOR UNION v. LUZON BROKERAGE CO.

  • G.R. No. L-17476 November 30, 1961 - BERNARDO CORDA, ET AL. v. EUGENIO MAGLINTI