Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1962 > August 1962 Decisions > G.R. No. L-15050 August 30, 1962 - SANTIAGO SYJUCO, INC. v. FELISA RESULTAN, ET AL. :




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-15050. August 30, 1962.]

SANTIAGO SYJUCO, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FELISA RESULTAN, for herself and her minor children, CESAREO DE LEON, WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, PHILIPPINE BANK OF COMMERCE and SHERIFF OF MANILA, Defendants-Appellees.

Eliodoro L. Quitoriano, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Javier & Javier for Defendants-Appellees.


SYLLABUS


1. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION; AWARD IN LUMP SUM; PAYMENT HOW MADE. — The Workmen’s Compensation Commission issued an award directing payment to the claimant the sum of P4,000.00 as death compensation, without specifying just how it is to be paid. In the absence of such specification it should be understood the payment is to be made in lump sum, and hence execution of the judgment can only be ordered in that manner.

2. ID.; ID.; AWARD MAY NOT BE MODIFIED AFTER IT HAS BECOME FINAL. — After the award had become final and executory for lack of appeal taken therefrom, the same may not be modified in the sense of providing for its payment not in lump sum but in installments.

3. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION; POWER TO ORDER EXECUTION OF ITS DECISIONS. — The Workmen’s Compensation Commission has no power to order the execution of its decisions. Under Section 51 of the Workmen’s Compensation Law, only the court of the place where the accident occurred has the authority to order such execution by the promulgation of a judgment.


D E C I S I O N


MAKALINTAL, J.:


Plaintiff appeals from the judgment of the Court of First Instance of Manila dismissing its complaint seeking to enjoin the enforcement of the writ of execution issued by the Workmen’s Compensation Commission in connection with the award made by it in W.C.R. case No. R03-53661.

The following facts are not disputed: Upon the death in April 1958 of Justo Resultan, a salesman of appellant company, his widow Felisa Resultan filed a claim for death benefits under the Workmen’s Compensation Law. Since appellant did not controvert the claim appellee Cesareo de Leon, Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner, issued an award on July 29, 1958 directing payment to the claimant and her children of P4,000.00 as death compensation and P200 as burial expenses, aside from legal fees incident to the proceedings. The award became final and executory on September 15, 1958.

On October 1, 1958, upon motion by the claimant, the Commission issued a writ of execution. Pursuant thereto the sheriff of Manila on October 13, 1958 garnished appellant’s funds in the Philippine Bank of Commerce to the extent of P4,042,75. Accordingly the said bank issued on October 24, 1958 the corresponding manager’s check in the name of the sheriff. The next day, October 15, the present action was commenced by appellant company in the Court of First Instance of Manila to enjoin the enforcement of the writ of execution. A writ of preliminary injunction was issued, as a result of which payment of the aforesaid check was suspended. On November 28, 1958 the trial court rendered the judgment appealed from, dismissing the complaint and dissolving the writ of injunction.

From the proceedings below and from the briefs of the parties on appeal we gather that two issues are presented for resolution: (1) whether or not the Workmen’s Compensation Commission is authorized by law to make an award for the payment of death benefits in lump sum instead of by installments; and (2) whether or not it can issue a writ of execution for the enforcement of its award.

The record of the proceedings in the Commission is not now before us, but there is no dispute as to the fact that the award is for death compensation in the sum of P4,000.00, without specifying just how it is to be paid. In the absence of such specification it should be understood that payment is to be made in lump sum, and hence execution of the judgment can only be ordered in that manner. The authority of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission to settle and adjudicate the claim in question is admitted by the parties. So is the correctness of the amount awarded. Since the award became final and executory without an appeal having been taken therefrom, we fail to see how the same may be modified in the present action in the sense of providing for its payment not in lump sum but in installments. In any event, the question has become moot, because even if it be held that the amount of P4,000.00 should have been ordered paid in weekly installments, to extend for a period of not more than 208 weeks pursuant to section 10 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act (Act 3428, as amended by Republic Act No. 772), it would now avail appellant no practical benefit, for the entire period has already expired since appellant’s liability to pay compensation attached in April 1958. For according to Section 45 of the same Act, if the right to compensation is not controverted, as in this case it was not, the employer shall begin paying the same either on or before the fourteenth day after disability or within five days after the employer first has knowledge of the accident.

As we see it, therefore, the real issue in this case is whether or not the Workmen’s Compensation Commission may issue a writ of execution to enforce its judgment. The authority to issue such writ is based on Section 12 Article III of Reorganization Plan No. 20-A, which has been declared void and unconstitutional insofar as it vests the Commission and its regional offices with a judicial power properly pertaining to regular courts. (Corominas v. Labor Standards Commission, Et Al., G.R. No. L-14837 June 30, 1961; Pastoral v. the Commissioners of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission, Et Al., G.R. No. l-12903, July 31, 1961; "Y" Shipping Corporation v. Borcelis, G.R. No. L-16538, October 27, 1961; Divinagracia v. Court of First Instance of Manila, Et Al., G.R. No. L-17690, December 29, 1961; and Community Sawmill Co., v. The Workmen’s Compensation Commission, Et Al., G.R. No. L-17937, December 28, 1961.) In these cases we have declared that the Commission has no power to order the execution of its decisions and that they must be enforced in accordance with Section 51 of the Workmen’s Compensation Law, 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 therefore, 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.

"The Commissioner shall, upon application by the proper party or the Court before which such action is instituted, issue a certification that no petition for review or appeal within the time prescribed by section forty-nine hereof has been taken by the Respondent."cralaw virtua1aw library

While we are constrained to reverse the judgment appealed from, we are nevertheless hard put to accept with good grace the position of appellant, a big and solvent corporation, which has seen fit to raise technical obstacles to the payment at one time of what it admits to be a just and lawful claim. Surely the little inconvenience such manner of payment might entail, if it existed at all, could have been overlooked in favor of the urgent needs of the deceased employee’s widow and children. It is to be hoped that if the amount awarded to them has not yet been paid up to now, appellant will pay it as soon as possible instead of compelling the awardees to go through the procedure of execution as prescribed by law.

The judgment appealed from is reversed; the writ of execution issued by appellee Workmen’s Compensation Commission, together with all proceedings in connection therewith, is vacated; and appellees are permanently enjoined from enforcing the same. No costs.

Bengzon, C.J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Paredes, Dizon and Regala, 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






August-1962 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-17507 August 6, 1962 - ALFREDO FERRER, ET AL. v. ANGELES RODRIGUEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-14127-28 August 21, 1962 - ISIDORO M. MERCADO v. LEON C. VIARDO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16253 August 21, 1962 - EAST ASIATIC CO., LTD. v. CITY OF DAVAO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17780 August 24, 1962 - EUGENIO NADURA v. BENGUET CONSOLIDATED, INC.

  • G.R. No. L-17993 August 24, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PROTACIO MANLAPAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18327 August 24, 1962 - AGUSTIN ATIENZA v. N. ALMEDA LOPEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18460 August 24, 1962 - DY PAC & COMPANY, INC. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14034 August 30, 1962 - ACTING COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. LAZARUS JOSEPH, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15050 August 30, 1962 - SANTIAGO SYJUCO, INC. v. FELISA RESULTAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15206 August 30, 1962 - EXEQUIEL FLORO v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15662 August 30, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CARMELO VALERA

  • G.R. No. L-15988 August 30, 1962 - VICENTE GARCIA, ET AL. v. PEDRO DE GUZMAN

  • G.R. No. L-17084 August 30, 1962 - JOSEFA DULAY v. PEDRO C. MERRERA

  • G.R. No. L-17317 August 30, 1962 - PHILIPPINE RABBIT BUS LINE, INC. v. JESUS D. VILLAPANA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17449 August 30, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ZOSIMO MONTEMAYOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17595 August 30, 1962 - RAFAEL MASCARIÑAS, ETC. v. CARMELO L. PORRAS, ETC.

  • G.R. No. L-17801 August 30, 1962 - LEONOR G. TAGAYUMA v. OLEGARIO LASTRILLA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17836 August 30, 1962 - MATEO CANITE, ET AL. v. MADRIGAL & CO., INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17890 August 30, 1962 - REINERIO TICAO, ET AL. v. ARSENIO NAÑAWA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18058 August 30, 1962 - NATIONAL RICE AND CORN CORPORATION v. NARIC WORKERS UNION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18107 August 30, 1962 - MARIA G. AGUAS, ET AL. v. PERPETUA YERRO-LLEMOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18119 August 30, 1962 - PABLO S. HAMOY v. PAMBAYA BATINGOLO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18177 August 30, 1962 - REHABILITATION FINANCE CORPORATION v. ISABEL ACUÑA DE NEPOMUCENO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14129 August 30, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GUILLERMO MANANTAN

  • G.R. No. L-15858 August 30, 1962 - DY LAM GO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-18428 August 30, 1962 - MARIANO G. ALMEDA, SR., ET AL. v. JESUS Y. PEREZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18745 August 30, 1962 - JOSE T. VELASQUEZ v. PEDRO K. CORONEL, ETC.

  • G.R. No. L-13081 August 31, 1962 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. LIMACO & DE GUZMAN COMMERCIAL CO., INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14187 August 31, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RUBEN DE LA CRUZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14401 31 August 31, 1962 - PANGASINAN TRANSPORTATION CO., INC. v. RICARDO FELICIANO

  • G.R. No. L-15022 August 31, 1962 - VICENTE STO. DOMINGO BERNARDO, ET AL. v. FRANCISCO B. JOSE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15121 August 31, 1962 - GREGORIO PALACIO v. FELY TRANSPORTATION COMPANY

  • G.R. No. L-15379 August 31, 1962 - TEODORO L. URBAYAN v. CALTEX (PHILIPPINES) INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15663 August 31, 1962 - ANTONIO GUISADIO v. RUBEN A. VILLALUZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16021 August 31, 1962 - ANTONIO PORTA FERRER v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

  • G.R. No. L-16169 August 31, 1962 - BLAS CUNANAN v. FELICIDAD LARA DE ANTEPASADO, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-16204 and L-16256 August 31, 1962 - ERNESTO A. PAPA, ET AL. v. SEVERO J. SANTIAGO

  • G.R. No. L-16449 August 31, 1962 - PAUL SCHENKER v. WILLIAM F. GEMPERLE

  • G.R. No. L-16945 August 31, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JESUS L. CRISOSTOMO

  • G.R. No. L-16953 August 31, 1962 - PABLO SARNILLO, ET AL. v. MONTANO A. ORTIZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17303 August 31, 1962 - ANTONIO CO PO v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

  • G.R. No. L-17311 August 31, 1962 - QUIRICO A. ABELA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17389 August 31, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MAMERTO S. MIRANDA

  • G.R. No. L-17448 August 31, 1962 - VICENTE DICHOSO v. LEANDRO VALDEPEÑAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17464 August 31, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICENTE RECOLIZADO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17620 August 31, 1962 - FAR EASTERN UNIVERSITY v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17750 August 31, 1962 - A. L. AMMEN TRANSPORTATION COMPANY INC., ET AL. v. JOSE BORJA

  • G.R. No. L-17766 August 31, 1962 - LEONARDO MADRIGAL v. CITY SHERIFF OF MANILA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17799 August 31, 1962 - BENVENENCIO VALENCIA, ET AL. v. CITY OF DUMAGUETE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17831 August 31, 1962 - JESUS J. ANDRES v. MELECIO DOMINGO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17849 August 31, 1962 - GREGORIO G. AGUILAR v. FELIPE NATIVIDAD, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17897 August 31, 1962 - CEBU PORTLAND CEMENT COMPANY v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18040 August 31, 1962 - SANTIAGO RICE MILL, ET AL. v. SANTIAGO LABOR UNION

  • G.R. No. L-18055 August 31, 1962 - FELIX MORADA v. HERMOGENES CALUAG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18076 August 31, 1962 - ELEUTERIO CANEDA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-18251 and Nos L-18252 August 31, 1962 - IRINEO SANTOS, JR., ET AL. v. JOSE P. FLORES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18316 August 31, 1962 - RODOLFO CACHUELA v. NATALIO P. CASTILLO

  • G.R. No. L-18469 August 31, 1962 - MUNICIPAL BOARD OF CANVASSERS OF BANSUD, ORIENTAL MINDORO, ET AL. v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18541 August 31, 1962 - DONATO IGNACIO, ET AL. v. PASTOR L. DE GUZMAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18564 August 31, 1962 - CONSUELO T. DE CASES v. TERESITA F. PEYER

  • G.R. No. L-18695 August 31, 1962 - CIPRIANO MARTINEZ, ET AL. v. RAYMUNDO VILLACETE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18836 August 31, 1962 - BENJAMIN SIA v. JAVIER T. BUENA

  • G.R. No. L-19823 August 31, 1962 - RUPERTO ADVINCULA, ET AL. v. COMMISSION ON APPOINTMENTS, ET AL.