Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1975 > May 1975 Decisions > G.R. No. L-40187 May 30, 1975 - GENERAL TEXTILES, INC. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-40187. May 30, 1975.]

GENERAL TEXTILES, INC., Petitioner, v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION and LEONILA M. JAVIER, Respondents.

Ramon C. Cabading for Petitioner.

Andres C. Zavalla & Leon R. Villamin for respondent WCC.

Isidro D. Amoroso for respondent Leonila M. Javier.

SYNOPSIS


Two days after the knowledge of its employee’s illness, petitioner filed a notice controverting the compensability of the ailment with Regional Office No. 4 of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission at Manila which has jurisdiction over its place of business. Two days after the employee died, petitioner again filed with the same Regional Office a second notice controverting any claim for death compensation. Two months after, the respondent-widow filed her claim for death benefits before the Labor Office at Mandaluyong Rizal. Petitioner filed a third notice of controversion with this office. Without a hearing, an award was made declaring that the deceased’s illness was work-connected, that petitioner failed to file its controversion on time, and that all defenses of non-jurisdictional nature were forfeited. A motion for reconsideration was denied. The respondent Commission reviewed the claim as provided for by law. The same affirmed the awards; hence the present petition which the court decide to treat as a special civil action for the expeditious determination of the case.

The court ruled that the Commission’s pronouncement, as against the undisputed documents in the records of the case, constitutes a grave abuse of discretion and that petitioner had been denied its right to due process of law.

Decision set aside. Case remanded to respondent Commission for hearing and determination on the merits.


SYLLABUS


1. LABOR AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION; WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION ACT; CLAIM FOR COMPENSATION; NOTICE OF CONTROVERSION FILED ON TIME IN INSTANT CASE. — Where the documented fact of record show that the employer did timely file, just two days after the death of its employee, the corresponding notice of controversion with the proper Regional Office of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission, the latter’s arbitrary pronouncement that the controversion was not filed on time constitutes a grave abuse of discretion which is manifestly based on a misapprehension of facts and cannot be binding on this Court.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; CASE TO BE REMANDED FOR HEARING WHERE PETITIONER WAS DENIED HIS DAY IN COURT. — The pronouncement of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission, wrongly declaring that the employer did not seasonably controvert, and thereby renounced all right to assail, the claim on non-jurisdictional grounds, constitutes a denial of the employer’s right to due process and to a day in court. The case shall be remanded for hearing at which parties shall be given the opportunity to submit evidence, oral and documentary, in support of their respective contentions.


D E C I S I O N


TEEHANKEE, J.:


The Court sets aside respondent commission’s ex-parte decision and award and remands the case for hearing and determination on the merits, since respondent commission in wrongly declaring that petitioner did not seasonably controvert the claim as against the documented fact of record to the contrary, has deprived petitioner of its right to due process and to a day in court.

The following facts are undisputedly established by the documents in the records of the case:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

On August 31, 1973, two (2) days after having been informed of the illness of its employee, Constante Javier who later died on November 18, 1973 and is survived by his widow, respondent-claimant Leonila M. Javier and five minor children, petitioner-employer filed its notice of controversion (Employer’s Report of Accident or Sickness — WCC Form No. 3) 1 with the WCC unit in Regional Office No. 4 of the Department of Labor at Manila, the regional office which has jurisdiction over Quezon City, petitioner’s place of business, controverting the compensability of the employee’s ailment, as required by law. 2

On November 20, 1973, two (2) day after the death on November 18, 1973 of the said employee petitioner again filed a second notice of controversion with the same Regional Office No. 4, controverting any claim for death compensation. 3

Two months later on January 28, 1974, respondent-widow filed her claim for death compensation before the Rizal Labor Office at Mandaluyong, Rizal and notice thereof was received by petitioner on February 23, 1974; 4 and on February 28, 1974, petitioner filed a third controversion of the claim (this time with the Mandaluyong Office where the claim was actually filed). 5

On May 15, 1974, petitioner received from said Mandaluyong Office copy of the award dated May 8, 1974 of the office’s chief of unit, rendered without hearing and declaring that" (D)eceased’s illness having supervened in the course of employment, the presumption is that it arose out of the employment and for its failure to file its controversion on time, respondent is deemed to have constructively admitted the compensability of the claim and forfeited all such defenses of non-jurisdictional nature as are available in the premises An outright award is therefore proper and justified," directing petitioner to pay claimant P6,200.00 as death compensation and reimbursement of burial expenses and P61.00 as administrative fee.

Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration underscoring the fact that it had timely filed two previous controversions and submitting copies thereof, and praying for the setting aside of the award and the setting of the case for hearing at the earliest possible date was denied per order of August 14, 1974 which elevated the records to respondent commission for review as provided by the Rules.

Under date of January 30, 1975, respondent commission rendered its decision wherein it totally ignored and made no mention of the two earlier and timely controversions of petitioner and taking into account only the third controversion filed with the Mandaluyong office; arbitrarily ruled that petitioner’s controversion was filed out of time, declaring that "as admitted by the (petitioner), it first knew of Javier’s death on November 18, 1973. However, the (petitioner), filed the Employer’s Report controverting the instant claim only on February 28, 1971, "and that" (H)aving failed to seasonably controvert claimant’s right to compensation, the respondent by operation of law is deemed to have renounced its right to assail the instant claim on no-jurisdictional grounds. And this means, that all non-jurisdictional defenses such as the non-compensability of the illness or injury, prescription, etc., are barred. Hence, there is nothing the (petitioner) can prove in relation thereto."cralaw virtua1aw library

As to the cause of death, the commission found that" (A) perusal of the death certificate reveals that there is no information as to the cause of death of the deceased. However, the CERTIFICATE OF POST-MORTEM EXAMINATION issued by the Medico-Legal Officer of the National Bureau of Investigation on November 18, 1973 shows that the cause of death was ‘Hemorrhagic pancreatitis, acute’."cralaw virtua1aw library

Respondent commission accordingly affirmed the award, besides ordering petitioner to pay additionally 5% or P300.00 as attorney’s fees, besides additional cost of P5.00 for the review.

Hence, the present petition. Upon receiving the respective comments required of respondents, the Court resolved on May 7, 1975 to treat the case as a special civil action and dispense with the filing of briefs for an expeditious determination of the case.

Respondent commission’s arbitrary pronouncement that petitioner’s controversion was not timely filed cannot stand as against the documented fact of record that petitioner did timely file on November 20, 1973, just two days after the death on November 18, 1973 of its employee, the corresponding notice of controversion with Regional Office No. 4 at its regional headquarters in Manila and of which the Mandaluyong office (where the claim was actually filed later) is but an extension or a sub-office. 6 That such timely controversion earlier filed with the main office of Regional Office No. 4 at Manila was properly and validly filed therein (since it properly covered Quezon City where petitioner has its place of business as required by the Commission Rules) is unquestioned. Neither of respondents in their respective comments has questioned or denied the fact of such earlier controversion timely filed by petitioner.

Such arbitrary pronouncement constitutes a grave abuse of discretion and is manifestly based on a misapprehension of facts and cannot be binding on this Court. 7

It is manifest that respondent commission in wrongly declaring that petitioner did not seasonably controvert the claim and thereby renounced all right to assail the claim on non-jurisdictional grounds, has denied petitioner of its right to due process and to a day in court where it could properly present its defenses. The case shall be remanded for hearing at which the parties shall be given the opportunity to submit evidence, oral and documentary, in support of their respective contentions.

ACCORDINGLY, respondent commission’s decision of January 30, 1975 is hereby set aside and the case is remanded to respondent commission or its successor under the Labor Code of the Philippines (under P.D. No. 442) for hearing and determination on the merits.

Castro (Chairman), Makasiar, Esguerra, Muñoz Palma and Martin, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. Petition, Annex A.

2. Under section 2, Rule 7 of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission Rules, an employer must file upon being informed of the employee’s injury or illness the report or controversion required by Sec. 37 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act with the Workmen’s Compensation Unit of the Regional Office where the employer resides or has his place of business as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"SEC. 2. Submission of Report Before Notice of Claim. — In the absence of any claim filed and served upon the employer or insurance carrier, the reports required under Section 37 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act may be submitted to the Workmen’s Compensation Unit of the Regional Office where the employer resides or has his place of business. But if the injured or sick laborer concerned or his dependent chooses to file his claim with a different Unit other than where the employer resides or has his place of business in accordance with the provisions of Sec. 2 of Rule 6, the employer or his insurance carrier shall, upon being served with the claim by the Unit while it is filed, notify said Unit of the reports he submitted and the Chief of the Unit of the Regional Office where the reports were submitted shall then, upon due notice, transmit the reports and other allied papers to the Chief of the Unit where the claim is filed."cralaw virtua1aw library

Such report or controversion, which must be filed within the reglementary period as required by sec. 45 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, serves as controversion of any claim subsequently filed by the employee, under Rule 8, section 1 of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission rules, which provides:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"SEC. 1. Right to Compensation Deemed Controverted. — With or without a claim for compensation having been first filed, the employee’s right to compensation is deemed controverted where the employer or carrier has filed a notice of controversion with the proper Unit within fourteen (14) days from the date of the disability or within ten (10) days after the employer or his representative first acquired knowledge of the disability resulting from the accident or illness."cralaw virtua1aw library

3. Petition, Annex B.

4. Idem, Annex C.

5. Idem, Annex D.

6. Quezon City where petitioner has its place of business is encompassed within Region No. 4 which "comprises the provinces of Bulacan, Rizal, Cavite, Occidental Mindoro and Palawan and the cities of Pasay, Quezon, Tagaytay, Cavite, Trece Martires and Manila, with regional headquarters at Manila." (Rep. Act 2646 sec. 1 (d)).

7. See Ramos v. CA, L-25463, Apr. 4, 1975 and cases cited.




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-1975 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-29129 May 8, 1975 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOMINGO MABUYO

  • G.R. No. L-33516 May 8, 1975 - MARIANO RODRIGUEZ v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-37364 May 9, 1975 - BENIGNO S. AQUINO, JR. v. MILITARY COMMISSION NO. 2, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 547 January 29, 1975 - EMERENCIANA V. REYES v. FELIPE C. WONG

  • G.R. No. L-27674 May 12, 1975 - SOLEDAD T. CONSING, ET AL. v. JOSE T. JAMANDRE

  • G.R. No. L-40143 May 12, 1975 - MARIANO G. HIQUIANA v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

  • A.M. No. 487-CAR May 13, 1975 - ROMULO G. LOPEZ v. GETULIO Z. GUEVARA

  • G.R. No. L-25048 May 13, 1975 - PHOENIX ASSURANCE COMPANY v. MACONDRAY & CO., INC.

  • G.R. No. L-34314 May 13, 1975 - SOFIA PASTOR DE MIDGELY v. PIO B. FERANDOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-38096 May 14, 1975 - CONCEPCION T. UY v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. 77-MJ May 16, 1975 - JUAN B. CASTILLO v. TEOFILO A. BARSANA

  • A.M. No. P-124 May 16, 1975 - SOLEDAD V. GANADEN v. GREGORIO N. BOLASCO

  • G.R. No. L-39195 May 16, 1975 - SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION, ET AL. v. SECRETARY OF LABOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-39569 May 16, 1975 - CROMWEL DENILA, ET AL. v. JOSUE BELLOSILLO, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. 804-CJ May 19, 1975 - SATURNINO SELANOVA v. ALEJANDRO E. MENDOZA

  • A.C. No. 1081 May 19, 1975 - ABUNDIO BALDOMAN v. ROQUE LUSPO

  • G.R. No. L-20203 May 19, 1975 - LA CARLOTA SUGAR CENTRAL v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26191 May 19, 1975 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDUARDO BESANA, JR.

  • G.R. No. L-39993 May 19, 1975 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CONSTANTE A. ANCHETA

  • A.M. No. 534-CFI May 20, 1975 - LYDIA S. NOCUM v. WILLELMO C. FORTUN

  • G.R. No. L-28649 May 21, 1975 - FRANCISCO J. NICOLAS v. REPARATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-33720-21 May 21, 1975 - PHILIPPINE BRITISH CO., INC., ET AL. v. WALFRIDO DE LOS ANGELES, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. 411-MJ May 22, 1975 - ERNESTO R. GONZALES v. VICENTE DE RODA OF BOGO, CEBU

  • G.R. No. L-32080 May 22, 1975 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AGUSTIN ALQUISAR, ET. AL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-36022 May 22, 1975 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. IGNACIO JOVEN

  • G.R. No. L-39115 May 26, 1975 - SEGIFREDO L. ACLARACION v. MAGNO S. GATMAITAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-40010 May 26, 1975 - RUSSEL R. ENERIO, ET AL. v. NESTOR B. ALAMPAY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25921 May 27, 1975 - VANGUARD ASSURANCE CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. 41-MJ May 28, 1975 - ALFREDO ARPON v. ARISTIDES B. DE LA PAZ, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. P-242 May 28, 1975 - PEDRO PINEDA v. MARIO A. HIZALAN

  • A.M. No. 429-MJ May 28, 1975 - GASPAR PARENTE v. FERNANDO DE LOS SANTOS

  • G.R. No. L-29128 May 28, 1975 - DOMINGA JAVIER, ET AL. v. SABAS MARFIL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-36560 May 28, 1975 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PAULINO ILAGAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-39764 May 28, 1975 - ONG TIAO SENG v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-40491 May 28, 1975 - SEGUNDO AMANTE v. DELFIN VIR. SUÑGA

  • A.C. No. 203-CJ May 29, 1975 - PABLO MARCOS v. ANDRES DOMINGO, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. 253-MJ May 29, 1975 - ALFONSO S. AUSEJO, ET AL. v. GAUDENCIO P. PAJUNAR

  • G.R. No. L-24522 May 29, 1975 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NUMERIANO G. ESTENZO

  • G.R. No. L-27534 May 29, 1975 - ATLAS TIMBER COMPANY, ET AL. v. FIRST WESTERN BANK AND TRUST CO.

  • G.R. No. L-31041 May 20, 1975 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUANITO C. ALDE

  • G.R. No. L-39863 May 29, 1975 - MANUEL GARCIA, ET AL. v. TOMAS R. LEONIDAS, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 111-MJ May 30, 1975 - FELIX CARREON v. BRUNO R. FLORES

  • A.M. No. 810-CJ May 30, 1975 - JOSE KUAN SING v. ROSENDO BALTAZAR

  • A.M. No. 852-MJ May 30, 1975 - FELISBERTO ALEGRE v. RHODIE A. NIDEA

  • A.C. No. 905 May 30, 1975 - HERMOGENES G. MENDOZA v. ARSENIO R. REYES

  • G.R. No. L-25779 May 30, 1975 - SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM v. VALDERRAMA LUMBER MANUFACTURERS CO., INC.

  • G.R. No. L-26507 May 30, 1975 - LAKAS NG MANGGAGAWANG MAKABAYAN v. WALFRIDO DELOS ANGELES

  • G.R. No. L-37378 May 30, 1975 - HIDELIZA C. CAMOMOT, ET AL. v. ROMULO SENINING, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-38502 May 30, 1975 - PIO B. FERANDOS v. JUAN Y. REYES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-39741 May 30, 1975 - NATION MULTI SERVICE LABOR UNION, ET AL. v. MARIANO V. AGCAOILI, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-40187 May 30, 1975 - GENERAL TEXTILES, INC. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.