December 1975 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1975 > December 1975 Decisions >
G.R. No. L-32120 December 17, 1975 - GERTRUDES I. VDA. DE OLIB v. CITY OF MANILA, ET AL:
FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. L-32120. December 17, 1975.]
GERTRUDES I. VDA. DE OLIB, in her own behalf and in behalf of her minor children, namely, ROLANDO, VIRGILIO, VIRGINIA, CRISTINA, RODOLFO, NUNILON, JR. and OLIVIA, all surnamed OLIB, Petitioners, v. CITY OF MANILA, WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION AND REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES (Department of Education and Culture and Bureau of Public Schools), Respondents.
Pico & Abrogena, for Petitioners.
Gregorio A. Ejercito for respondent City of Manila.
Solicitor General Estelito P. Mendoza, Assistant Solicitor General Jose F. Racela, Jr. and Solicitor Josefina D. de Leon respondent Republic of the Philippines, etc.
SYNOPSIS
In its Resolution dated November 12, 1975, the Supreme Court upheld respondent Commission’s setting aside the original award of September 9, 1966 by Regional Office No. 3 because petitioner’s counsel filed the claim against the wrong party, the city of Manila instead of the National Government; but in the interest of justice, ordered that the Republic of the Philippines, specifically the Bureau of Public Schools and the Department of Education and Culture be impleaded as respondents against the claim and that they state their stand with regard thereto through the Solicitor General on behalf of respondent National Government recognized the compensability of deceased’s death, and offered no objection to the enforcement of award granted in favor of claimants against the National Government, specifically the Department of Education and Culture.
Accordingly, the respondent Republic of the Philippines, specifically the Department of Education and Culture as employer of deceased was adjudged liable to pay the award made by the Workmen’s Compensation Commission.
Accordingly, the respondent Republic of the Philippines, specifically the Department of Education and Culture as employer of deceased was adjudged liable to pay the award made by the Workmen’s Compensation Commission.
SYLLABUS
1. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION; COMPENSATION CASE SHALL BE RESOLVED WITHOUT REGARD TO TECHNICALITIES. — The hearing, investigation and determination of any question or controversy in workmen’s compensation cases shall be without regard to technicalities legal forms and technical rules on evidence. Substantial evidence, whenever necessary, shall be sufficient to support a decision, order or award. (Sec. 7-A) Workmen’s Compensation Act.
D E C I S I O N
TEEHANKEE, J.:
As noted in our Resolution of November 12, 1975, petitioners appear to have a valid claim for compensation arising from the death on June 22, 1961 of the deceased Nunilon Olib, a janitor-watchman at the Mapa High School, for tetanus as a result of a wound inflicted during the discharge of his duties at the school building, but their counsel filed the claim against the wrong party, the City of Manila, rather than against the national government (the Bureau of Public Schools under the Department of Education and Culture).
The Court accordingly upheld respondent commission’s setting aside of the original award of September 9, 1966 by Regional Office No. 3 but in the interest of justice and so as not to unduly delay the final disposition of the claim, ordered that "the Republic of the Philippines, specifically the Bureau of Public Schools and the Department of Education and Culture be impleaded as respondents against the claim and that they state their stand with regard thereto through the Solicitor General."
The Solicitor General on behalf of respondent national government filed with commendable dispatch their comment of November 28, 1975 recognizing the compensability of the deceased’s death. Correctly invoking the mandate of the Workmen’s Compensation Act (section 7-A) that "the hearing, investigation and determination of any question or controversy in workmen’s compensation cases shall be without regard to technicalities, legal forms and technical rules on evidence. Substantial evidence, whenever necessary, shall be sufficient to support a decision, order or award," and in consonance with the rule’s fundamental objective of the promotion of substantial justice and equity (Rule 28, section 1 of the Commission rules), the Solicitor General expressly "offers no objection to the enforcement of the award granted in favor of herein claimants against the National Government, specifically the Department of Education and Culture."
The record shows that the original decision and award of September 9, 1966 of the Manila regional office of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission found that the employer’s liability was as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"1. To pay the claimant, Gertrudes Vda. de Olib, thru this Office, the amount of FOUR THOUSAND (P4,000.00) PESOS, as death compensation benefits;
"2. To reimburse the claimant-widow, also thru this Office, the amount of TWO HUNDRED (P200.00) PESOS, as burial expenses;
"3. To pay claimant’s legal counsel, Atty. Francisco Pico, the amount of TWO HUNDRED (P200.00) PESOS, as attorney’s fee; and
"4. To pay this Office the amount of FORTY-ONE (P41.00) PESOS, as fee, pursuant to Section 55 of the Act, as amended."cralaw virtua1aw library
ACCORDINGLY, respondent Republic of the Philippines, specifically the Department of Education and Culture, as employer of the deceased Nunilon Olib is hereby adjudged liable to pay the above-quoted award and in view of its express acceptance of its liability therefor, is enjoined to satisfy the same forthwith upon receipt of this decision.
Makasiar, Esguerra, Muñoz Palma and Martin, JJ., concur.
The Court accordingly upheld respondent commission’s setting aside of the original award of September 9, 1966 by Regional Office No. 3 but in the interest of justice and so as not to unduly delay the final disposition of the claim, ordered that "the Republic of the Philippines, specifically the Bureau of Public Schools and the Department of Education and Culture be impleaded as respondents against the claim and that they state their stand with regard thereto through the Solicitor General."
The Solicitor General on behalf of respondent national government filed with commendable dispatch their comment of November 28, 1975 recognizing the compensability of the deceased’s death. Correctly invoking the mandate of the Workmen’s Compensation Act (section 7-A) that "the hearing, investigation and determination of any question or controversy in workmen’s compensation cases shall be without regard to technicalities, legal forms and technical rules on evidence. Substantial evidence, whenever necessary, shall be sufficient to support a decision, order or award," and in consonance with the rule’s fundamental objective of the promotion of substantial justice and equity (Rule 28, section 1 of the Commission rules), the Solicitor General expressly "offers no objection to the enforcement of the award granted in favor of herein claimants against the National Government, specifically the Department of Education and Culture."
The record shows that the original decision and award of September 9, 1966 of the Manila regional office of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission found that the employer’s liability was as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"1. To pay the claimant, Gertrudes Vda. de Olib, thru this Office, the amount of FOUR THOUSAND (P4,000.00) PESOS, as death compensation benefits;
"2. To reimburse the claimant-widow, also thru this Office, the amount of TWO HUNDRED (P200.00) PESOS, as burial expenses;
"3. To pay claimant’s legal counsel, Atty. Francisco Pico, the amount of TWO HUNDRED (P200.00) PESOS, as attorney’s fee; and
"4. To pay this Office the amount of FORTY-ONE (P41.00) PESOS, as fee, pursuant to Section 55 of the Act, as amended."cralaw virtua1aw library
ACCORDINGLY, respondent Republic of the Philippines, specifically the Department of Education and Culture, as employer of the deceased Nunilon Olib is hereby adjudged liable to pay the above-quoted award and in view of its express acceptance of its liability therefor, is enjoined to satisfy the same forthwith upon receipt of this decision.
Makasiar, Esguerra, Muñoz Palma and Martin, JJ., concur.
