Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1962 > May 1962 Decisions > G.R. No. L-17939 May 30, 1962 - RICARDO CARLOS v. MARIA DE LA ROSA:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-17939. May 30, 1962.]

RICARDO CARLOS, Petitioner, v. MARIA DE LA ROSA, Respondents.

Florencio Carlos for Petitioner.

Maria de la Rosa for and in his own behalf as Respondent.

P.C. Villavieja and Edgardo de la Cruz for respondent Workmen’s Compensation Commission.


SYLLABUS


1. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION; FAILURE OF EMPLOYER TO CONTROVERT RIGHT OF EMPLOYEE’S COMPENSATION UPON NOTICE; WAIVER. — Failure on the part of the employer to file a seasonable notice of controversion of the right of the employees to compensation, as required by Sec. 45 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, as amended, constitutes a waiver by operation of law of his right to controvert the employee’s claim for compensation on non-jurisdictional grounds, and such legal effect does not violate the requirements of due process. Under the circumstances, the remedy of the employer is to seek the reinstatement of his right to controvert the employee’s claim by submitting reasonable grounds or proving excusable negligence of the Commissioner. (Victorias Milling Co., Inc. v. Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner, L-10533, May 13, 1957.)


D E C I S I O N


BAUTISTA ANGELO, J.:


On June 1, 1959, while Celso Aroyo was working as a laborer with a daily wage of P4.00 in the construction of a church somewhere in Sampaloc, Manila, he fell from a scaffolding nine meters high from the ground where he was found unconscious. He was hurriedly taken to the North General Hospital where he died upon arrival. His employer was Ricardo Carlos who undertook the construction under a contract entered into between him and the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila. As a result, Aroyo’s widow filed a claim for compensation with Labor Regional Office No. 3 situated in Manila.

On June 24, 1959, said office sent a letter to Ricardo Carlos informing him of the widow’s claim and requesting that he submit, duly filed out, employer’s report concerning the accident as required by Section 37 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act (No. 3428), as amended. This request was reiterated in a subsequent letter sent on July 17, 1959, which was received by Carlos on July 27, 1959. Despite said request, Carlos failed to submit the report in disregard of the requirement of the law.

On October 7, 1959, based on the police report and other pertinent record in his office, the regional administrator issued an award in favor of the claimant in the amount of P2,611.00, copy of which was received by Carlos on January 11, 1960.

Carlos filed a petition for reconsideration alleging that if he failed to appear or to answer the claim it was due to the fact that he was never summoned nor notified of any hearing thereof, of that judgment was rendered against him without due process of law. He said that he had a good defense to counteract the widow’s claim and desired to be given an opportunity to prove it. This was denied by the regional administrator. Carlos then filed a petition for review with the Workmen’s Compensation Commission, which in turn was denied by Commissioner Nieves Baens del Rosario, Carlos’ appeal to the commission en banc was also denied. Hence, this petition for review.

Petitioner contends that the regional administrator as well as the Workmen’s Compensation Commission acted without jurisdiction in deciding the claim for compensation filed against him for the reason that the same was heard without having been notified thereof or without having been served with summons as required by law advising him that, if he should fail to appear or answer, judgment by default would be taken against him.

It appears that this is the same issue he raised not only before the regional administrator when he filed his motion for reconsideration but also before the Workmen’s Compensation Commission on appeal, and on both occasions his plea was overruled on the main ground that he failed to controvert the right of compensation of the claimant within 10 days from notice of the accident or of the claim for compensation as relayed to him by the regional office in charge of the case. Thus, on this point, Commissioner del Rosario made the following comment:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"It appears that despite the two letters of the Regional Office dated June 24, 1959 and July 17, 1959, which were directed to and received by the respondent, the latter refused to submit the required Employer’s Report and Physician’s Report (WCC Forms 3 & 4, respectively). For this reason, and considering the evidence then in the hands of the Regional Administrator, he rendered an award dated October 7, 1959, in favor of the claimant and her minor child in the amount of P2,611.00 (including burial expenses in the amount of P115.00). The respondent received the award on January 11, 1960. Since no written petition for review had been submitted within the statutory period of 15 days, the award became final and executory. Despite this, however, the Regional Administrator, in a letter to the respondent dated February 2, 1960, and received on February 16, 1960, gave the latter another period of 10 days within which to effect payment with the warning that a writ of execution of the award will follow in case of failure to pay."cralaw virtua1aw library

We find no reason to disagree with the foregoing comment. Indeed, the same finds support in Section 45 of Act No. 3428, as amended, which provides in part:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"SEC. 45. Compensation, how payable.

x       x       x


"In case the employer decides to controvert the right to compensation, he shall, either on or before the fourteenth day of disability or within ten days after he has knowledge of the alleged accident, file a notice with the Commission, on a form prescribed by him, that compensation is not being paid, giving the name of the claimant, name of the employer, date of the accident, and the reason why compensation is not being paid. Failure on the part of the employer or the insurance carrier to comply with this requirement shall constitute a renunciation to his right to controvert the claim unless he submits reasonable grounds for the failure to make the necessary reports, on the basis of which grounds the Commissioner may reinstate his right to controvert the claim. . . ."cralaw virtua1aw library

This ruling of the Commission also finds support in the case of Victorias Milling Co., Inc. v. Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner, G.R. No. L-10533, promulgated May 13, 1957, wherein this Court said:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Failure on the part of the employer to file a seasonable notice of controversion of the right of the employees to compensation, as required by Sec. 45 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, as amended, constitutes a waiver, by operation of law, of his right to controvert the employee’s claim for compensation on non-jurisdiction grounds, and such legal effect does not violate the requirements of due process. Under the circumstances, the remedy of the employer is to seek the reinstatement of his right to controvert the employee’s claim by submitting reasonable grounds or proving excusable negligence before the Commissioner."cralaw virtua1aw library

Petitioner has not given any plausible reason that would entitle him to the reinstatement of his right to controvert the claim other than his contention that action was taken against him without having been served any formal summons as required by the rules of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission. But such reason was found to be unsatisfactory because the right he was claiming is only given to one who has not waived his right to controvert as required by law.

WHEREFORE, the award appealed from is affirmed, without pronouncement as to costs.

Padilla, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Paredes, Dizon and Regala, 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-1962 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-19721 May 10, 1962 - CARLOS CUNANAN v. JORGE TAN, JR.

  • G.R. No. L-15580 May 10, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PACIFICO CLOMA

  • G.R. No. L-19593 May 10, 1962 - DELFIN B. ALBANO v. PROVINCIAL BOARD OF CANVASSERS OF ISABELA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14975 May 15, 1962 - NATIONAL LABOR UNION v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-11938 May 18, 1962 - LA CAMPANA STARCH FACTORY, ET AL. v. KAISAHAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA LA CAMPANA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-12658 May 18, 1962 - FORTUNATO PICHAY, ET AL. v. MICHAEL S. KAIRUZ

  • G.R. No. L-14573 May 18, 1962 - CONCEPCION FELICIANO v. COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15092 May 18, 1962 - ALFREDO MONTELIBANO, ET AL. v. BACOLOD-MURCIA MILLING CO., INC.

  • G.R. Nos. L-17041-17042 May 18, 1962 - TOMAS LITIMCO v. LA MALLORCA

  • G.R. No. L-17153 May 18, 1962 - UNITED STATES RUBBER CO. v. MARIANO MEDINA

  • G.R. No. L-17524 May 18, 1962 - FELICIANO VERGARA v. CIRIACO VERGARA

  • G.R. No. L-18883 May 18, 1962 - PEDRO ESTELLA v. PEDRO EDAÑO

  • G.R. No. L-10457 May 22, 1962 - CONCEPCION H. LUNA, ET AL. v. PEDRO P. SANTOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16472 May 23, 1962 - JUANA VDA DE MARTEL, ET AL. v. JULIANA F. ADRALES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16628 May 23, 1962 - VIVENCIO LASALA, ET AL. v. JOSE F. FERNANDEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17593 May 24, 1962 - INES SAPONG CASEÑAS, ET AL. v. RICARDO JANDAYAN

  • G.R. No. L-18420 May 24, 1962 - DALMACIO PREPOTENTE v. JOSE SURTIDA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17788 May 25, 1962 - LUIS RECATO DY, ET AL. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17905 May 25, 1962 - IGNACIO CAMPOS, ET AL. v. MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15345 May 26, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICARDO MAPA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15915 May 26, 1962 - MARCELINO T. MACARAEG, ET AL. v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK

  • G.R. No. L-17923 May 26, 1962 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. ROMAN CANSINO, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18069 May 26, 1962 - ALFONSO DY CUECO v. SEC. OF JUSTICE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16732 May 29, 1962 - RAMON AUGUSTO, ET AL. v. ARCADIO ABING, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17622 May 29, 1962 - IN RE: FERNANDO UY v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-12613 May 30, 1962 - FARM IMPLEMENT MACHINERY CO. v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

  • G.R. No. L-13250 May 30, 1962 - COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. ANTONIO CAMPOS RUEDA

  • G.R. No. L-13555 May 30, 1962 - SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSION v. FROILAN BAYONA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14010 May 30, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LUIS M. TARUC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14207 May 30, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIONISIO MENDIOLA

  • G.R. No. L-15680 May 30, 1962 - LUZON STEVEDORING CORPORATION v. LAND REGISTRATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16027 May 30, 1962 - LUMEN POLICARPIO v. MANILA TIMES PUBLICATION CO., INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16383 May 30, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELIPE LUMANTAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16407 May 30, 1962 - ARCADIO G. MATELA v. CHUA TAY

  • G.R. No. L-16828 May 30, 1962 - SI NE v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-16850 May 30, 1962 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. UNITED STATES LINES COMPANY

  • G.R. No. L-16955 May 30, 1962 - SALVADOR PANLILIO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17013 May 30, 1962 - IN RE: YAN HANG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-17025 May 30, 1962 - IN RE: SY SEE v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-17338 May 30, 1962 - ADRIANO D. DASALLA, ET AL. v. CITY ATTORNEY OF QUEZON CITY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17394 May 30, 1962 - AMADOR D. SANTOS v. DOLORES BANZON TOLENTINO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17396 May 30, 1962 - CECILIO PE, ET AL. v. ALFONSO PE

  • G.R. No. L-17458 May 30, 1962 - DANILO DAVID v. ALASKA LUMBER COMPANY

  • G.R. No. L-17502 May 30, 1962 - A. V. H. & COMPANY OF THE PHIL. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSIONER, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17588 May 30, 1962 - TERESA REALTY, INC. v. MAXIMA BLOUSE DE POTENCIANO

  • G.R. No. L-17591 May 30, 1962 - CLEOTILDE LAT v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17616 May 30, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELIPE ABUY

  • G.R. No. L-17656 May 30, 1962 - EDUARDO TAYLOR v. PEDRO M. GIMENEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17663 May 30, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ISAURO SANTIAGO

  • G.R. Nos. L-17684-85 May 30, 1962 - VILLA REY TRANSIT, INC. v. PANGASINAN TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17757 May 30, 1962 - MAMERTA DE LA MERCED v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17896 May 30, 1962 - VALENTIN A. FERNANDO v. ANGAT LABOR UNION

  • G.R. No. L-17920 May 30, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ORLANDO CARREON

  • G.R. No. L-17932 May 30, 1962 - JOSE D. DE LA CRUZ v. SULPICIO DOLLETE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17939 May 30, 1962 - RICARDO CARLOS v. MARIA DE LA ROSA

  • G.R. No. L-17977 May 30, 1962 - JEREMIAS MONTEJO v. DOMINGO CABANGON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18023 May 30, 1962 - ANGEL OTIBAR, ET AL. v. DEMETRIO G. VINSON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18026 May 30, 1962 - SAN FELIPE IRON MINES, INC. v. JOSE A. NALDO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18165 May 30, 1962 - PLYWOOD INDUSTRIES, INC. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18530 May 30, 1962 - JOSE ALCANTARA v. DIONISIA YAP, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18535 May 30, 1962 - VALDERRAMA LUMBER MANUFACTURERS’ COMPANY, INC. v. L. S. SARMIENTO, CO., INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18871 May 30, 1962 - EDUARDO SOTTO v. DIRECTOR OF PRISONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-11357 May 31, 1962 - FELIPE B. OLLADA, ETC. v. CENTRAL BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. L-11621 May 31, 1962 - ANTONIA DE GUZMAN VDA. DE RONQUILLO, ET AL. v. FRANCISCO MARASIGAN

  • G.R. No. L-11848 May 31, 1962 - IN RE: ADELA SANTOS GUTIERREZ v. JOSE D. VILLEGAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-12719 May 31, 1962 - COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. CLUB FILIPINO, INC., DE CEBU

  • G.R. No. L-14180 May 31, 1962 - LUDOVICO ESTRADA, ET AL. v. AMADO S. SANTIAGO, ETC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16045 May 31, 1962 - IN RE: CHUA CHIONG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-16185-86 May 31, 1962 - BENIGNO T. PEREZ, ET AL. v. ANTONIO M. PEREZ

  • G.R. No. L-17437 May 31, 1962 - MENO PE BENITO v. ZOSIMO MONTEMAYOR

  • G.R. No. L-17520 May 31, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FAUSTINO BALANCIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-17603-04 May 31, 1962 - CEFERINA SAMO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17835 May 31, 1962 - GONZALO SANTOS RIVERA, ET AL. v. ANTONIO J. VILLEGAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17852 May 31, 1962 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. AMADOR E. GOMEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17955 May 31, 1962 - PILAR LAZARO VDA. DE JACINTO, ET AL. v. SALUD DEL ROSARIO VDA. DE JACINTO, ET AL.