Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1965 > August 1965 Decisions > G.R. No. L-20998 August 31, 1965 - ABOITIZ SHIPPING CORP. v. DEMETRIA OQUERIA, ET AL:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-20998. August 31, 1965.]

ABOITIZ SHIPPING CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. DEMETRIA OQUERIA, and the minors MEMORACION, ELICITA, MAXIMO and MARIETTA, all surnamed BUEN, represented by their mother, the respondent Demetria Oqueria, Respondents.

Pedro B. Uy Calderon and Manuel B. Pastrana for Petitioner.

Demetria Oqueria in her own behalf as respondents.


SYLLABUS


1. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION; AWARD WITHOUT PREVIOUS NOTICE AND HEARING, WHEN JUSTIFIED; CASE AT BAR. — Petitioner Shipping Corporation was aware of the disappearance of its seaman and yet it did not file the corresponding Employer’s Report of Accident within fourteen days from the date of the accident or within ten days after it acquired knowledge thereof. Petitioner did not try, either to justify, or even explain, its failure to submit the report within the statutory period. Consequently, petitioner is deemed to have admitted the validity of the claim for compensation, so that the Regional Labor Administrator was justified in readily making the corresponding award, without previous notice and hearing.


D E C I S I O N


CONCEPCION, J.:


Appeal by certiorari, taken by petitioner Aboitiz Shipping Corporation, from an order and a resolution of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission, sustaining a claim for compensation of respondents Demetria Oqueria and her children based upon the alleged death of Demetria’s husband and father of her children, Sofronio Buen.

The record shows that Sofronio Buen, a seaman of petitioner "was lost at sea while the M/V Carmen was" navigating in the high seas, near Kaubian Island, "making its voyage from Cebu City to Surigao del Norte, on October 14, 1961. A marine protest was filed by the Master" of said vessel, "Publio Gacela, at Tandag, Surigao del Sur, after futile attempts had been made to recover the body of Sofronio Buen" (in the language of the order appealed from). On January 3, 1962, in view of petitioner’s failure to submit its "employer’s report of accident" prior thereto, Regional Office No. VIII wrote to the Manager of the Aboitiz Co., Inc., a communication (Annex A) enclosing therewith the corresponding forms, with the request that the same be accomplished and then returned to said office. On January 26, 1962, Aboitiz Co., Inc., replied stating that said vessel belongs, not to said enterprise, but to petitioner Aboitiz Shipping Corporation, to which said letter (Annex A) and the aforementioned forms were indorsed (see Annex B). Soon, thereafter, or on January 29, 1962, petitioner wrote to Regional Office No. VIII the communication Annex C, acknowledging receipt of Annex A and enclosing therewith the aforementioned forms duly accomplished.

Soon, thereafter, or on February 20, 1962, the Regional Labor Administrator, who considered respondents’ claim for compensation uncontroverted, made the award, Annex G, declaring that said respondents are entitled to a total compensation of P3,806.40, and, accordingly, directing petitioner herein to pay this sum to the respondents, and the sum of P39.00 to the Workmen’s Compensation Commission as fee thereof under Section 55 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, as amended.

On March 16, 1962, petitioner filed a motion, dated March 14, 1962, to set aside said award, which motion was denied in an order of the Regional Labor Administrator of May 14, 1962. On June 21, 1962, petitioner moved for the review of said award of February 20, 1962 and of the aforementioned order of May 14, 1962. By an order dated January 14, 1963, the petition for review was denied by the Chairman of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission, upon the ground that the motion to set aside the award had been filed out of time. On or about January 26, 1963, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of this order of January 14, 1963. The motion was denied by the Workmen’s Compensation Commission en banc, on February 19, 1963.

Hence this appeal by certiorari taken by the petitioner, which maintains that the Workmen’s Compensation Commission erred: (1) in holding that petitioner had not controverted the claim for compensation involved in this case; (2) in not holding that the award of February 20, 1962 and the order of May 14, 1962, denying the petition to set aside said award, are illegal and invalid, the award having been made without previous notice and hearing; (3) in impliedly presuming the death of Buen in consequence of his disappearance from petitioner’s vessel; (4) in not holding that the filing by petitioner of the Employer’s Report of Accident or Sickness on January 30, 1962, had satisfied the requirements of Section 1, Rule 14, of the Rules of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission; (5) in not holding that in sending copy of the award dated February 20, 1962 to petitioner’s manager instead of to petitioner’s counsel, the Commission contravened Section 2, Rule 27, of the Rules of Court; (6) in not holding that the reglementary period to seek a review of such award commenced to run from receipt of notice thereof by petitioner’s counsel; and (7) in concluding that said award has already become final and executory and in affirming said award.

It is not disputed that Sofronio Buen disappeared from petitioner’s vessel while the same was navigating in the high seas on October 14, 1961, that a watchman of the vessel discovered said disappearance on that same date, and that, after searching in vain for the body of Sofronio, the Master of said vessel filed the corresponding protest. Petitioner was aware, therefore, of said disappearance of Buen since October 14, 1961. Yet, it did not file the corresponding Employer’s Report of Accident within fourteen (14) days from said date or within ten (10) days after it acquired knowledge of the accident. Pursuant to the second paragraph of Section 45 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, as amended, petitioner is deemed, accordingly to have renounced the right to controvert the claim for compensation (National Development Co. vs WCC, Et Al., L-20504, March 31, 1965; Manila Railroad Co. v. Vda. de Chavez, etc., Et Al., L-20103, September 30, 1964; Agustin v. WCC, L-19957, September 29, 1964; Manila Railroad Co. v. Pineda, L-19773, May 30, 1964) unless it "submits reasonable grounds for the failure to make the necessary reports, on the basis of which the commissioner may reinstate his right to controvert the claim." Although petitioner did not submit its Employer’s Report of Accident and the Employer’s Supplementary Report of Accident until January 30, 1962, or 108 days after the accident, and after its agent had knowledge thereof, it did not try, either to justify, or even explain, its failure to submit the report aforementioned within the statutory period. As a consequence — despite the statement in said Employer’s Report of Accident (Annex D) to the effect that it controverted the claim for compensation — petitioner is deemed, therefore, to have admitted the validity of respondents’ claim for compensation, so that the Regional Labor Administrator was justified in readily making the corresponding award, without previous notice and hearing.

It is also, clear that, apart from the circumstance that the death of Buen is deemed admitted by petitioner in view of its failure to controvert respondents’ claim for compensation, said death was properly deduced from the fact that Buen disappeared from petitioner’s vessel while the same was navigating in the high seas; that, according to petitioner’s Supplementary Report of Accident (Annex F), Buen must have jumped or fallen overboard; that Buen was then under the influence of Liquor, and, hence, under circumstances unfavorable to an intelligent and effective effort on his part to save his life; that, despite diligent search, his body could not be found, because of which the corresponding marine protest was filed by the Master of said vessel; and that, up to the present, or almost four (4) years later, the whereabouts of Buen has not been located.

As regards the party on whom notice of the award should have been served, suffice it to say that, at the time of said award, petitioner’s counsel had not, as yet, entered his appearance in the case. Accordingly, notice of said award was properly served upon petitioner itself, on February 24, 1962. Petitioner’s motion of March 16, 1962, to set aside said award, was filed, therefore, after the expiration of the period of fifteen (15) days prescribed therefor in Rule 23, Section 1, of the Rules of the Commission. In other words, the award was then final and executory.

WHEREFORE, the order and the resolution appealed from are hereby affirmed, with costs against the petitioner. It is so ordered.

Bengzon, C.J., Bautista Angelo, Reyes, J.B.L., Regala, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P., and Zaldivar, JJ., concur.

Dizon, J., took no part.

Barrera, J., is on leave.




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






August-1965 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. Nos. L-24012 & L-24040 August 9, 1965 - ANTONIO J. VILLEGAS v. ABELARDO SUBIDO, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-19807 August 10, 1965 - AGUSTIN O. CASENAS v. DIONISIO CABIGUEN

  • G.R. No. L-20170 August 10, 1965 - BERT R. BAGANO v. DIRECTOR OF PATENTS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-17022 August 14, 1965 - SOLIS & YARISANTOS v. LIBERATO SALVADOR, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-18833 August 14, 1965 - HONESTO ALVAREZ, ET AL. v. PEDRO K. ESPIRITU

  • G.R. No. L-19072 August 14, 1965 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICARDO ALVAREZ

  • G.R. No. L-19598 August 14, 1965 - ILUMINADA SANTIAGO, ET AL v. GAUDENCIO CLORIBEL, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-19940 August 14, 1965 - FERNANDEZ KIDPALOS v. BAGUIO GOLD MINING CO.

  • G.R. No. L-20124 August 14, 1965 - NELITA MORENO VDA. DE BACALING v. GSIS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-20735 August 14, 1965 - GLICERIA C. LIWANAG v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL

  • G.R. Nos. L-20806-07 August 14, 1965 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALEJANDRO DAYDAY, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-20986 August 14, 1965 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HON. VICENTE N. CUSI, JR., ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-20844 August 14, 1965 - ANGELITA F. RIVERA v. LORETO LUCIANO

  • G.R. No. L-21014 August 14, 1965 - PHIL. FARMING CORP. LTD. v. ALEJANDRO LLANOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21506 August 14, 1956

    FELICISIMA MANUBAY v. PEDRO DE GUZMAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16903 August 31, 1965 - MANILA PENCIL CO., INC., ET AL v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-17517 August 31, 1965 - ESTEFANIA PISALBON, ET AL v. ENRIQUE BALMOJA, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-18087 August 31, 1965 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PABLO A. CONSIGNA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18156 August 31, 1965 - MAXIMO BAQUIRAN v. HON. WENCESLAO ORTEGA, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-18404 August 31, 1965 - CESAR LEDESMA, ET AL. v. CONCEPCION VDA. DE OPINION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18786 August 31, 1965 - ROMAN F. DIONISIO v. SOCORRO FRANCISCO VDA. DE DIONISIO

  • G.R. No. L-19207 August 31, 1965 - MARSMAN & CO., INC., ET AL. v. LEOPOLDO SYQUIA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19382 August 31, 1965 - FILOMENA ABELLANA DE BACAYO v. GAUDENCIA FERRARIS DE BORROMEO, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-19445 August 31, 1965 - CIR v. BISHOP OF THE MISSIONARY DIST. OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19766 August 31, 1965 - FERMIN DE LA VICTORIA, ET AL. v. LEVY HERMANOS, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19922 August 31, 1965 - ERNESTO CLOMA, ET AL v. AGUINALDO INDUSTRIES CORP., ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-20290 August 31, 1965 - IN RE: PANTALEON SIA v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-20469 August 31, 1965 - PEDRO C. PASTORAL v. MUTUAL SEC. INS. CORP., ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-20482 August 31, 1965 - IN RE: SATURNINO DY v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-20491 August 31, 1965 - ALHAMBRA CIGAR & CIGARETTE MFTG. CO., INC. v. NAT. ADMI. OF REG’L. OFF. No. 2, Dept. of Labor, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-20612 August 31, 1965 - FELIX A. YUBOCO, ET AL v. JOSE L. MATIAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20630 August 31, 1965 - C. N. HODGES, ET AL v. JOSE MANUEL LEZAMA, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-20685 August 31, 1965 - CATALINA VDA. DE VISMANOS, ET AL. v. MUNICIPALITY OF TAGUM, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20901 August 31, 1965 - CIRIACA SANTOS v. TEODORICA DUATA , ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20998 August 31, 1965 - ABOITIZ SHIPPING CORP. v. DEMETRIA OQUERIA, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-21186 August 31, 1965 - ZOSIMO ARROYO v. HON. EULOGIO MENCIAS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-22221 August 31, 1965 - PARKE, DAVIS & CO. v. DOCTORS’ PHARMACEUTICAL, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22425 August 31, 1965 - NORTHWEST AIRLINES, INC. v. NICOLAS L. CUENCA, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-23476 August 31, 1965 - ARISTOTLE TUASON v. HON. CALIXTO O. ZALDIVAR