Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1991 > May 1991 Decisions > G.R. No. 42189 May 27, 1991 - ERNESTO PANTI v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 42189. May 27, 1991.]

ERNESTO PANTI, Petitioner, v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION and NATION PROPERTY INVESTMENT CORPORATION, Respondents.

F.M. Natividad & Associates for Private Respondents.


SYLLABUS


1. LABOR LAW; WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION; FAILURE OF EMPLOYER TO CONTROVERT EMPLOYEE’S RIGHT TO COMPENSATION WITHIN THE PRESCRIPTIVE PERIOD; LEGAL EFFECT; CASE AT BAR. — It is clear from the records that private respondent failed to controvert within fourteen (14) days from the date of disability or within ten (10) days from knowledge thereof pursuant to the above-quoted provision of law, the claim for compensation which petitioner filed with Regional Office No. 4, Department of Labor, Manila with the Physician’s Report showing petitioner is suffering from Hernia Ingual Scrotal aggravated by his employment as bellboy of private Respondent. Therefore, since the claim was uncontroverted and there is no showing of fraud or collusion in the non-controversion of the claim which is supported by documentary evidence, an award without further hearing was issued by the Acting Chief of Section, Regional Office No. 4, Department of Labor. It is significant to note the claim of private respondent in his Motion for Reconsideration is that there was lack of due notice of the claim and of hearing prior to rendition of the award. This contention is without merit, "since failure to controvert is a renunciation of the right to challenge the claim and a waiver of all non-jurisdictional defenses and there is nothing that employer can legally prove in relation thereto." (Dinarao v. Workmen’s Compensation Commission, Et Al., 70 SCRA 292). It has long been established that the employer in such cases is deemed to have waived his right to interpose any defense, and he cannot prove anything in relation thereto, or complain that he was deprived of his right to a hearing (Fuentes v. Binamira, 2 SCRA 1133; FAICOL v. WCC, 93 SCRA 811 [1979]). Conversely, the claimant is not required to substantiate his claim as in such case the compensability of the illness is presumed. (Buenaventura v. WCC, 76 SCRA 485 [1977]); Canete v. WCC, 136 SCRA 303 [1985]).


D E C I S I O N


BIDIN, J.:


This is a petition for Review on Certiorari of the Decision of the defunct Workmen’s Compensation Commission dated November 29, 1975 in R04-WC Case No. 161126 which reversed the Award of Disability Compensation dated February 18, 1975 of Acting Chief of Section E.M. Cayapas of the Regional Offices No. 4, Department of Labor, Manila on the ground that said Award is contrary to law and existing jurisprudence.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

Records show that on December 10, 1974, the herein petitioner filed a Notice of Injury Sickness and Claim for Compensation with the Regional Office No. 4, Department of Labor, Manila, where attending physician, Dr. Gisbert diagnosed petitioner’s ailment as Hernia Ingual Scrotal (R) "Prognosis: Good if Surgery is performed."cralaw virtua1aw library

Private respondent-employer Nation Property Investment Corporation failed to controvert the petitioner’s right to compensation within 14 days from date of disability or within ten (10) days from knowledge thereof pursuant to Section 45 of Act 3428, as amended.

On February 18, 1975, petitioner was awarded the following:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Award, therefore, of the aforementioned benefits in favor of the claimant is hereby entered and respondent ordered to pay:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

1. The Claimant, thru this Office, in one lump sum the amount of SEVEN HUNDRED TWENTY-NINE PESOS and 60/100 (729.60) and to a weekly compensation of P38.40 beginning February 19, 1975 until his disability for labor ceases or his illness cured or arrested, provided, that the lump sum payment and the subsequent weekly payments do not exceed six thousand pesos; and

2. The Workmen’s Compensation Fund, the amount of P8.00 as partial payment of administrative fee, pursuant to Section 55 of the Act. Bill No. IV-1904 is hereto attached."cralaw virtua1aw library

Private respondent filed a Motion for Reconsideration of aforestated awards which was denied in an Order dated September 22, 1975. However, considering that the Motion for Reconsideration was filed within the reglementary period of fifteen (15) days, the same was elevated to the Workmen’s Compensation Commission.

On November 29, 1975, the Commission sitting en banc rendered a decision reversing and dismissing the claim for lack of merit. The dispositive portion of said decision reads:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The claimant failed to establish conditions to which he was subject in the performance of his occupation as a "Bellboy" or to attach a hazard to such occupation which distinguishes it from the usual run of occupation that could predispose him to the growth or aggravation of the illness."cralaw virtua1aw library

Hence, this petition.

In the resolution of February 20, 1976, the Court required respondents to comment, which was complied with by private respondent on March 11, 1976; while public respondent Workmen’s Compensation Commission filed a manifestation dated April 24, 1976 adopting the comment of private Respondent.cralawnad

In the resolution of May 7, 1976, the Court resolved to treat the petition for review as a special civil action; and to require both parties to submit simultaneous memoranda within thirty (30) days from notice thereof. The parties complied by filing their respective memoranda.

The crucial issue is whether or not an employer or his representative may controvert a claim after the period prescribed by Section 45 of Act 3428, as amended, had elapsed.

The pertinent provision of Section 45 of the aforementioned Act reads as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"In case the employer decided to controvert the right to compensation, he shall, either on or before the fourteenth day of disability or within ten (10) days after he has knowledge of the alleged accident, file a notice with the Commissioner, on a form prescribed by him, that compensation is not being paid, giving the name of the complainant, 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 the requirement shall constitute a renunciation of 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."cralaw virtua1aw library

It is clear from the records that private respondent failed to controvert within fourteen (14) days from the date of disability or within ten (10) days from knowledge thereof pursuant to the above-quoted provision of law, the claim for compensation which petitioner filed with Regional Office No. 4, Department of Labor, Manila with the Physician’s Report showing petitioner is suffering from Hernia Ingual Scrotal aggravated by his employment as bellboy of private Respondent.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

Therefore, since the claim was uncontroverted and there is no showing of fraud or collusion in the non-controversion of the claim which is supported by documentary evidence, an award without further hearing was issued by the Acting Chief of Section, Regional Office No. 4, Department of Labor the dispositive portion of which reads:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"AWARD, therefore, of the aforementioned benefits in favor of the claimant is hereby entered and respondent ordered to pay:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

1. The claimant, thru this Office, in one lump sum the amount of SEVEN HUNDRED TWENTY-NINE PESOS AND 60/100 (729.60) and to a weekly compensation of P38.40 beginning February 19, 1975 until his disability for labor ceases or his illness cured or arrested, provided, that the lump sum payment and the subsequent weekly payments do not exceed six thousand pesos; and

2. The Workmen’s Compensation Fund, the amount of P8.00 as partial payment of administrative fee, pursuant to Section 55 of the Act. Bill No. IV-1904 is hereto attached. (Award, RO4 WCC Case No. 1611260)

SO ORDERED."cralaw virtua1aw library

It is significant to note the claim of private respondent in his Motion for Reconsideration is that there was lack of due notice of the claim and of hearing prior to rendition of the award. This contention is without merit, "since failure to controvert is a renunciation of the right to challenge the claim and a waiver of all non-jurisdictional defenses and there is nothing that employer can legally prove in relation thereto." (Dinarao v. Workmen’s Compensation Commission, Et Al., 70 SCRA 292; Gomez v. WCC, 75 SCRA 395; Muling Tapang v. WCC, 80 SCRA 610; Canete v. WCC, 136 SCRA 302)cralawnad

In addition, there is no evidence on record which shows that the right of the private respondent to controvert the claim was reinstated by the Commission. At most, the Commission reversed the award granted by the Workmen’s Compensation Unit for failure of the claimant to establish conditions to which he was subject in the performance of his occupation as bellboy (Decision, RO4 WCC Case No. 161126; Rollo, pp. 30-31).

It has long been established that the employer in such cases is deemed to have waived his right to interpose any defense, and he cannot prove anything in relation thereto, or complain that he was deprived of his right to a hearing (Fuentes v. Binamira, 2 SCRA 1133; FAICOL v. WCC, 93 SCRA 811 [1979]). Conversely, the claimant is not required to substantiate his claim as in such case the compensability of the illness is presumed. (Buenaventura v. WCC, 76 SCRA 485 [1977]); Canete v. WCC, 136 SCRA 303 [1985]).

Moreover, respondent Commission’s finding that claimant failed to establish conditions to which he was subject in the performance of his occupation as a bellboy deserves scant consideration as it is of common knowledge that bellboys in hotels have the usual work of lifting heavy objects/suitcases of their customers which constitutes sufficient evidence on the aggravation of his illness.chanrobles lawlibrary : rednad

In addition, the legal presumption of compensability has not been traversed by the private respondent to whom the burden of proof is shifted (Parages v. ECC, 134 SCRA 73; Sanchez v. WCC, Et Al., 142 SCRA 338).

WHEREFORE, respondent Commission’s dismissal of the claim is hereby SET ASIDE and the AWARD of the Department of Labor, dated February 18, 1975 is reinstated.

SO ORDERED.

Fernan, C.J., Gutierrez, Jr., Feliciano and Davide, Jr., 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-1991 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 53768 May 6, 1991 - PATRICIA CASILDO CACHERO v. BERNARDINO MARZAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 65833 May 6, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EUGENIO G. LAGARTO, JR.

  • G.R. No. 75724 May 6, 1991 - WESTERN AGUSAN WORKERS UNION v. CRESENCIANO B. TRAJANO

  • G.R. No. 83383 May 6, 1991 - SOLID STATE MULTI-PRODUCTS CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 84079 May 6, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NESTOR KALUBIRAN

  • G.R. No. 85423 May 6, 1991 - JOSE TABUENA v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 86364 May 6, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LOPE ANDAYA

  • G.R. No. 87913 May 6, 1991 - LEONOR A. OLALIA v. LOLITA O. HIZON

  • G.R. No. 90742 May 6, 1991 - LEONARDO A. AURELIO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 91490 May 6, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DELFIN L. CASTRO

  • G.R. No. 92124 May 6, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. OSCAR BASE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 92742 May 6, 1991 - PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL INTERNATIONAL BANK v. NILDA S. JACINTO

  • G.R. No. 93561 May 6, 1991 - CANDIDO A. DALUPE v. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 93687 May 6, 1991 - ROMEO P. CO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 94037 May 6, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARIEL G. HILARIO

  • G.R. No. 95146 May 6, 1991 - ROBERTO E. FERMIN, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 85494 & 85496 May 7, 1991 - CHOITHRAM JETHMAL RAMNANI v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 93410 May 7, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROLANDO GODINES

  • G.R. No. 68743 May 8, 1991 - ROSA SILAGAN v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 71719-20 May 8, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JAIME C. BACDAD

  • G.R. No. 83271 May 8, 1991 - VICTOR D. YOUNG v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 84330 May 8, 1991 - RAMON Y. ASCUE v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 90021 May 8, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDGARDO D. LIM, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 93021 May 8, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIANO UMBRERO, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 94540-41 May 8, 1991 - NATIONAL FEDERATION OF LABOR UNIONS (NAFLU) v. ERNESTO G. LADRIDO III

  • G.R. No. 95667 May 8, 1991 - JOSE C. BORJA v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 96516 May 8, 1991 - JESUS C. ESTANISLAO v. AMADO COSTALES

  • G.R. No. 46658 May 13, 1991 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. GREGORIO G. PINEDA

  • G.R. No. 64818 May 13, 1991 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. MARIA P. LEE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 68138 May 13, 1991 - AGUSTIN Y. GO, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 67738 May 13, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUAN QUIRITAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 89168 May 14, 1991 - ROSA LENTEJAS v. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 91649 May 14, 1991 - HUMBERTO BASCO, ET AL. v. PHILIPPINE AMUSEMENTS AND GAMING CORPORATION

  • G.R. No. 91988 May 14, 1991 - ALLIED LEASING & FINANCE CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 92415 May 14, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. OMAR MAPALAO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 93885 May 14, 1991 - FELIX H. CABELLO v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 96298 May 14, 1991 - RENATO M. LAPINID v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-88-246 May 15, 1991 - IN RE: MARCELO G. GARCIA

  • G.R. No. 62673 May 15, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALEXANDER E. CORRO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 84401 May 15, 1991 - SAN SEBASTIAN COLLEGE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 89370-72 May 15, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PAULINO G. MAGDADARO

  • G.R. No. 93708 May 15, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MELVIN B. ODICTA, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 94878-94881 May 15, 1991 - NORBERTO A. ROMUALDEZ III v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 96025 May 15, 1991 - OSCAR P. PARUNGAO v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 96630 May 15, 1991 - NOTRE DAME DE LOURDES HOSPITAL, ET AL. v. HEILLA S. MALLARE-PHILLIPS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 56294 May 20, 1991 - SMITH BELL AND COMPANY (PHILIPPINES), INC., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 60848 May 20, 1991 - GAN HOCK v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 79597-98 May 20, 1991 - DEMETRIA LACSA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 83432 May 20, 1991 - RADIOWEALTH FINANCE COMPANY v. MANUELITO S. PALILEO

  • G.R. No. 90762 May 20, 1991 - AURELIO D. MENZON v. LEOPOLDO E. PETILLA

  • G.R. No. 91886 May 20, 1991 - ROLANDO ANG v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 91902 May 20, 1991 - MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY v. SECRETARY OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 96578 May 20, 1991 - CELSO LUSTRE v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 96608-09 May 20, 1991 - TUCOR INDUSTRIES, INC., ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 2614 May 21, 1991 - MAXIMO DUMADAG v. ERNESTO L. LUMAYA

  • G.R. No. 26785 May 23, 1991 - DEOGRACIAS A. REGIS, JR. v. SERGIO OSMEÑA, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 73573 May 23, 1991 - TRINIDAD NATINO, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 77087 May 23, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EMILIO F. NARIT

  • G.R. Nos. 78772-73 May 23, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MATEO PATILAN

  • G.R. No. 84647 May 23, 1991 - MARIA ALICIA LEUTERIO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 90625 May 23, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENEDICTO M. DAPITAN

  • G.R. No. 91003 May 23, 1991 - JESUS MORALES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 92422 May 23, 1991 - AMERICAN INTER-FASHION CORP. v. OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, ET AL.

  • Adm. Case No. 2736 May 27, 1991 - LORENZANA FOOD CORPORATION v. FRANCISCO L. DARIA

  • G.R. No. 42189 May 27, 1991 - ERNESTO PANTI v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 54177 May 27, 1991 - JOSE DARWIN, ET AL. v. FRANCISCA A. TOKONAGA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 76219 May 27, 1991 - GTE DIRECTORIES CORPORATION v. AUGUSTO S. SANCHEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 77205 May 27, 1991 - VALENTINO TORILLO v. VICENTE LEOGARDO, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 83463 May 27, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GENARO GINES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 85446 May 27, 1991 - OCEAN TERMINAL SERVICES, INC., ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 91106 May 27, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDGARDO MACEDA

  • G.R. No. 91934 May 27, 1991 - RAMON T. TORRES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 92626-29 May 27, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIO RAMOS

  • G.R. No. 96230 May 27, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIO E. CUSTODIO

  • A.C. No. 577 May 28, 1991 - REMEDIOS DY v. RAMON M. MIRANDA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 46132 May 28, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELIPE SANTIAGO

  • G.R. No. 81020 May 28, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LILIA F. GUTIERREZ

  • G.R. No. 83214 May 28, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUN AQUINO

  • G.R. No. 89870 May 28, 1991 - DAVID S. TILLSON v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95256 May 28, 1991 - MARIANO DISTRITO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 96301 May 28, 1991 - COLEGIO DEL STO. NIÑO, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 72763 May 29, 1991 - ALTO SALES CORP. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 76931 & 76933 May 29, 1991 - ORIENT AIR SERVICES & HOTEL REPRESENTATIVES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 84588 & 84659 May 29, 1991 - CONSOLIDATED BANK AND TRUST CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 87437 May 29, 1991 - JOAQUIN M. TEOTICO v. DEMOCRITO O. AGDA, SR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 96357 May 29, 1991 - PLANTERS DEVELOPMENT BANK v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-89-345 May 31, 1991 - COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. LORENZO SAN ANDRES

  • G.R. No. 63975 May 31, 1991 - GUILLERMO RIZO, ET AL. v. ANTONIO P. SOLANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 64323-24 May 31, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICENTE D. LUCERO, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 79723 & 80191 May 31, 1991 - KALILID WOOD INDUSTRIES CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 83694 May 31, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFREDO PONCE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 84361 May 31, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ELANITO QUIJANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 88291 May 31, 1991 - ERNESTO M. MACEDA v. CATALINO MACARAIG, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 91383-84 May 31, 1991 - SOCORRO COSTA CRISOSTOMO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 94262 May 31, 1991 - FEEDER INTERNATIONAL LINE, PTE., LTD. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 95122-23 & 95612-13 May 31, 1991 - BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS (CID), ET AL. v. JOSELITO DELA ROSA, ET AL.