SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

Search for www.chanrobles.com

PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST ➔ SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

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, vs. CITY OF MANILA, WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION COMMISSION AND REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES (Department of Education and Culture and Bureau of Public Schools), Respondents.

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).chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

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".chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

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".chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

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:

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;chanrobles virtual law library

2. To reimburse the claimant-widow, also thru this Office, the amount of TWO HUNDRED (P200.00) PESOS, as burial expenses;chanrobles virtual law library

3. To pay claimant's legal counsel, Atty. Francisco Pico, the amount of TWO HUNDRED (P200.00) PESOS, as attorney's fee; andchanrobles virtual law library

4. To pay this Office the amount of FORTY-ONE (P41.00) PESOS, as fee, pursuant to Section 55 of the Act, as amended.

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.