Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1958 > February 1958 Decisions > G.R. No. L-9390 February 28, 1958 - ADELINA SEVERO v. PANTALEON PELAYO, ET AL.

103 Phil 28:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-9390. February 28, 1958.]

ADELINA SEVERO, ETC., Petitioner, v. HON. PANTALEON PELAYO, ETC., JULIO LASIAN and REMEDIOS PINEDA, Respondents.

Roque E. Evidente for Petitioner.

Nicolas P. Nonato for Respondents.


SYLLABUS


1. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION; COURTS; JURISDICTION; NOTIFICATION; ENFORCEMENT OF AWARD. — Section 51 of Act 3428, as amended, only provides that upon the filing of an application for the execution of a decision of any referee or commissioner together with a certified copy of the award, the Court shall render a decree or judgment in accordance therewith and notify the parties thereof. If the counsel for the judgment debtor is notified and received copy of the judgment, there is sufficient compliance with the law.

2. ID.; ID.; PARTIAL PAYMENT OF AWARD; COURT DETERMINES THE DEDUCTION. — In case of partial payment of the award, the deduction should be determined, not by the Workmen’s Compensation Commission but by the Court of First Instance.


D E C I S I O N


ENDENCIA, J.:


On September 20, 1954, the herein respondents Julio Lasian and Remedios Pineda, as dependents of their son Jose C. Pineda who died while in the service of C. Ying Bakery, of which the petitioner Adelina Severo was the manager, were awarded "a compensation of P1,560, plus burial expenses not exceeding P100, less any amount already paid," by the Workmen’s Compensation Commission in case No. 18982 thereof. The award was not appealed and became final and executory. C. Ying, owner of the bakery, or its manager Adelina Severo, failed to pay the award except the amount of P500 and the fee of P16, thus leaving unpaid the sum of P1,060 plus the burial expenses, so on June 27, 1955, respondents Lasian and Pineda filed with the Court of First Instance of Iloilo, under Section 5 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, a petition wherein they prayed for an order of execution of the aforesaid award; and said court, acting on the petition, entered on July 2, 1955, the following order:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"It appearing from the certification of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission (Appendix B) that the above-named respondent has not appealed within the period allowed by Act No. 3428 as amended, to the Supreme Court, against the decision of the said Commissioner as contained in his letter-computation dated September 20, 1953 (Appendix A), judgment is hereby entered ordering the said respondent to pay claimants the amount of P1,560 plus burial expenses not exceeding P100, less any amount already paid, pursuant to Section 51 of Act No. 2429, as amended, otherwise known as the Workmen’s Compensation Act."cralaw virtua1aw library

and forthwith issued the writ of execution prayed for.

Upon being notified of this order and the writ of execution, petitioner filed on July 5, 1955 a motion "for reconsideration and to quash the writ of execution" alleging: "that the Court of First Instance of Iloilo has no jurisdiction to enter the order and to issue the writ complained of; that there is no exact amount to be executed and, therefore, the order cannot be enforced thru execution; that contrary to the provision of Section 51 of Act 3428 to the effect that the court shall render a decree or judgment in accordance therewith and notify the parties thereof, the herein petitioner was never notified of said judgment," and asked that the aforequoted order and writ of execution be annulled. This motion was denied by the respondent Judge, hence the present petition for certiorari filed on July 11, 1955, premised on the ground that the respondent Judge acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion in issuing the aforesaid order and writ of execution of July 2, 1955, and in denying petitioner’s motion for reconsideration of July 5, 1955.

On July 12, 1955 and before the herein respondents Lasian and Pineda were properly summoned of the present petition, they filed with the Court of First Instance of Iloilo a motion wherein they alleged that (a) according to the return of the Sheriff, C. Ying offered P875 to pay the execution against him, but refused to pay the balance of P285 alleging to have already paid it; (b) that said Sheriff, instead of receiving the offer and attaching the properties of the herein petitioner for the unpaid balance of P285, in connivance with the latter’s lawyer, maliciously and voluntarily discontinued the execution on the pretext that he was not in a position to determine the amount already paid; and (c) that said conduct of the Sheriff constituted a misbehavior in court; and thereby they asked (1) that the herein petitioner (respondent therein) and his lawyer be ordered to deposit with the Clerk of Court the amount offered; (2) that the Sheriff be ordered to continue the execution for the remaining unpaid amount of P285 until the herein petitioner can prove that he has paid it; and (3) that both the herein petitioner and his lawyer be ordered to appear before the Court to explain why they were systematically obstructing the administration of justice. This motion was opposed by the herein petitioner; it was heard on July 15, 1955 and, on that same date, the respondent Judge, modifying his previous order of July 2, 1955, entered the following order:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Considering that claimants have, thru their counsel Atty. Nicolas P. Nonato, admitted having already received the amount of P500, the dispositive part of the order of the Court dated July 2, 1955 is hereby amended so as to read as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

‘Judgment is hereby entered ordering respondent to pay claimants the sum of P1,060 plus P100 as burial expenses pursuant to Sec. 51 of Act 3428, as amended, otherwise known as the Workmen’s Compensation Act."cralaw virtua1aw library

Alleging that this order was against the law and the facts of the case, petitioner herein tried to appeal therefrom and to that end he filed a notice of appeal on July 16, 1955, but took no further steps to perfect it; so, on July 18, 1955, the herein respondents Lasian and Pineda moved that the notice of appeal be disregarded or rejected, that a more drastic measure be adopted to compel the officer of law to expedite the enforcement of the award, and that the case be endorsed to the City Fiscal for proper action. Petitioner opposed this motion and moved the court to overrule it and that the writ of execution already issued be stayed to wait for the result of the present petition, which motion was denied on July 21, 1955, on the ground that there was a writ of execution already issued.

Carefully considered, the issue involved in the case revolves around the proposition whether the lower court had no jurisdiction or abused its discretion in entering its orders of July 2 and 15, 1955, directing the petitioner to pay the sum of P1,060 plus P100 as burial expenses. These orders were evidently issued by the respondent Judge under section 51 of Act No. 3428, as amended, which provides:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"SEC. 51. Enforcement of Award. — Any party in interest may file in any court of record in the jurisdiction of which the accident occurred a certified copy of a decision of any referee or the Commissioner, from which no petition for review or appeal has been taken within the time allowed therefor, as the case may be, or a certified copy of a memorandum of agreement duly approved by the Commissioner, whereupon the Court shall render a decree or judgment in accordance therewith and notify the parties thereof.

"The decree or judgment shall have the same effect, and all proceedings in relation thereto shall thereafter be the same as though the decree or judgment had been rendered in a suit duly heard and tried by the Court, except that there shall be no appeal therefrom."cralaw virtua1aw library

Petitioner claims that, without notice to him, the respondents’ ex-parte motion of June 27, 1955 was heard and acted upon by the lower court and, therefore, the order of July 2, 1955 granting it, was illegal and unenforceable against him. This contention is, however, untenable for, according to the aforequoted Sec. 51, of Act No. 3428, as amended, the herein petitioner is only entitled to be notified of the judgment entered in accordance therewith; it does not require that before the hearing of a petition filed pursuant thereto, there should be a notification to the other party; it only provides that upon the filing of an application for execution of a decision of any referee or Commissioner together with a certified copy of the award, the Court shall render a decree or judgment in accordance therewith and notify the parties thereof . In the case at bar, Annex C of the petition clearly shows that counsel for herein petitioner was notified and received copy of the disputed order of July 2, 1955 as well as a copy of that of July 15, 1955, such that thereafter he filed a notice of appeal from said orders. There was, therefore, compliance with the law as to the notification of judgment entered by the court below, hence it cannot be pretended that it acted illegally or without jurisdiction when it entered the disputed order.

Petitioner also contends that the award of September 20, 1950 was not yet executory when the writ of execution was issued, because in that award the petitioner was ordered to pay the amount of P1,560 plus burial expenses not exceeding P100, less any amount already paid, and therefore, if there has been partial payment, the lower court cannot issue the writ of execution before the partial payment is deducted from the amount to be executed, which deduction should be decided, not by the lower court, but by the Commissioner. We find this contention also untenable because, in case of partial payment, the deduction should be determined, not by the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner, but by the Court of First Instance at the hearing of the motion for execution. In the case at bar, the question of what should be deducted from the award of September 20, 1950, was brought up before the lower court when the motion of the herein respondents of July 12, 1955 was duly heard on July 15, 1955 and which caused the respondent Judge to modify his order of July 2, 1955, requiring the petitioner herein to pay, not P1,560 as previously ordered, but P1,060 only plus P100 as burial expenses. Petitioner tried to appeal from the order but later on desisted, so the same became final and executory and could be enforced legally against the petitioner.

Lastly, it is contended that the lower court exceeded its jurisdiction when it entered the order of July 15, 1955, because the same changed, altered and modified the decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission. This contention merits no serious consideration, for the order in question did not change the nature of the award; it only reduced the amount that should be executed because of partial payment admitted by the respondents, otherwise injustice may be committed against the herein petitioner.

In view of all the foregoing, the petition under consideration is hereby denied without costs.

Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Reyes, A., Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L. and Felix, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main


chanrobles.com



ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com





February-1958 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-11264 February 10, 1958 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. ALFONSO AGODO

    102 Phil 1029

  • G.R. No. L-9198 February 13, 1958 - VALENTINA CADIZ v. FRANCISCO NICOLAS

    102 Phil 1032

  • G.R. No. L-10865 February 13, 1958 - EUFROSINA v. HON. JUDGE HILARION U. JARENCIO

    102 Phil 1040

  • G.R. No. L-10226 February 14, 1958 - VIRGINIA ANSALDO v. REP. OF THE PHIL.

    102 Phil 1046

  • G.R. No. L-10598 February 14, 1958 - IN RE: LOCAL CIVIL REGISTRAR OF MLA. JOAQUIN P. ROCES v. THE LOCAL CIVIL REGISTRAR OF MLA.

    102 Phil 1050

  • G.R. Nos. L-11483-84 February 14, 1958 - IN RE: Edward E. Christensen v. MARIA HELEN CHRISTENSEN GARCIA

    102 Phil 1055

  • G.R. No. L-10472 February 26, 1958 - IN RE: DIONISIO SY v. REP. OF THE PHIL.

    102 Phil 1071

  • G.R. No. L-11143 February 26, 1958 - ELIZALDE TRADING CORPORATION v. HON. S. C. MOSCOSO

    102 Phil 1074

  • G.R. No. L-6184 February 28, 1958 - VICENTE SANTANDER v. MANUEL VILLANUEVA, ET AL.

    103 Phil 1

  • G.R. Nos. L-6652-54 February 28, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIEGO COLMAN, ET AL.

    103 Phil 6

  • G.R. No. L-8476 February 28, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ABUNDIO ROMAGOSA

    103 Phil 20

  • G.R. No. L-9390 February 28, 1958 - ADELINA SEVERO v. PANTALEON PELAYO, ET AL.

    103 Phil 28

  • G.R. No. L-9550 February 28, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICENTE ANGCO

    103 Phil 33

  • G.R. No. L-10221 February 28, 1958 - LUTHER YOUNG, ET AL. v. JOSE BUCOY

    103 Phil 40

  • G.R. No. L-10232 February 28, 1958 - CONVETS, INC. v. NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, ET AL.

    103 Phil 46

  • G.R. No. L-10235 February 28, 1958 - IN RE: LIM HAM CHIONG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    103 Phil 52

  • G.R. No. L-10292 February 28, 1958 - PAO CHUAN WEI v. REPOSITO NOMOROSA, ET AL.

    103 Phil 57

  • G.R. No. L-10301 February 28, 1958 - MARIA JAVIER CRUZ, ET AL. v. JUAN P. ENRIQUEZ

    103 Phil 62

  • G.R. No. L-10307 February 28, 1958 - NATIONAL SHIPYARDS AND STEEL CORPORATION v. SALVADOR ASUNCION, ET AL.

    103 Phil 67

  • G.R. No. L-10474 February 28, 1958 - BENNY SAMPILO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    103 Phil 70

  • G.R. No. L-10549 February 28, 1958 - JOSE LEE DY PIAO v. PAZ TY SIN TEI

    103 Phil 80

  • G.R. No. L-10619 February 28, 1958 - LEOGARIO RONQUILLO, ET AL. v. JOSE ROCO, ET AL.

    103 Phil 84

  • G.R. No. L-10808 February 28, 1958 - COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. MARCELINO T. VIDUYA, ET AL.

    103 Phil 93

  • G.R. Nos. L-10817-18 February 28, 1958 - ENRIQUE LOPEZ v. VICENTE OROSA

    103 Phil 98

  • G.R. No. L-10824 February 28, 1958 - JOSE BENARES MONTELIBANO v. CARLOS BENARES

    103 Phil 106

  • G.R. No. L-10872 February 28, 1958 - JOSE DOMINGDING, ET AL. v. TRINIDAD NG, ET AL.

    103 Phil 111

  • G.R. No. L-10877 February 28, 1958 - MARIA C. ROA v. SEGUNDA DE LA CRUZ

    103 Phil 116

  • G.R. No. L-10919 February 28, 1958 - LORETO LORCA v. JOSE S. DINEROS

    103 Phil 122

  • G.R. No. L-11269 February 28, 1958 - SILVERIO FELICES v. MAMERTO IRIOLA

    103 Phil 125

  • G.R. No. L-11476 February 28, 1958 - MUNICIPALITY OF CAMILING v. BERNABE DE AQUINO

    103 Phil 128