Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1963 > April 1963 Decisions > G.R. No. L-17813 April 30, 1963 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-17813. April 30, 1963.]

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, (PHILIPPINE NORMAL HALL), Petitioner, v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION and DALMACIO SONGALLA, Respondents.

Solicitor General, for Petitioners.

P.C. Villavieja & J.T. de Leon and Alvin C. Balagtas for Respondents.


SYLLABUS


1. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION; COVERAGE OF WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION ACT; PERSONS PERFORMING MANUAL LABOR IN NATIONAL GOVERNMENT OR ANY OF ITS INSTRUMENTALITIES. — An assistant cook in the Philippine Normal Hall performs manual labor in the service of the National Government, or, at least, of one of its "instrumentalities", and, hence, is entitled to the benefits of the Workmen’s Compensation Act pursuant to section 3 thereof.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; ASSISTANT COOK IN PHILIPPINE NORMAL HALL ENTITLED TO BENEFITS FOR INJURIES ARISING IN THE COURSE OF EMPLOYMENT. — The act of the assistant cook in the Philippine Normal Hall, in uncorking a bottle of thermos for a lady boarder, which resulted in injury to him, even if admitted to be an "uncalled for act of courtesy", does not detract from the fact that the injury was the result of an "accident arising out of and in the course of his employment." Hence, he is entitled to compensation benefits.

3. ID.; ID.; ID.; NATURE OF NEGLIGENCE THAT RELIEVES EMPLOYER FROM LIABILITY. — The negligence of an employee which relieves the employer from liability under the Workmen’s Compensation Act is "notorious negligence." (Section 4, Act 3428, as amended.)

4. ID.; ID.; EFFECT OF EMPLOYER’S FAILURE TO CONTROVERT EMPLOYEE’S CLAIM WITHIN TEN DAYS. — An employer who fails to controvert an employee’s claim for workmen’s compensation within the period of ten (10) days prescribed in section 45 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act is deemed to have renounced the right to controvert said claim, unless it "submits reasonable grounds for the failure to make the necessary reports, on the basis of which grounds the (Workmen’s Compensation) Commissioner may reinstate his right to controvert, the claim.


D E C I S I O N


CONCEPCION, J.:


Appeal by the Government from a resolution of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission refusing to reconsider a decision of a member thereof sentencing the Republic of the Philippines to pay P1,385.00 to claimant Dalmacio Songalia, and P14.00 to Regional Office No. 3 of the Department of Labor as fee pursuant to section 55 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act.

Said Dalmacio Songalia was on June 6, 1956, and for some time prior thereto, an assistant cook of the Philippine Normal Hall, an adjunct of the Philippine Normal College, which is a public school operated by petitioner herein, the Republic of the Philippines. It appears that on said date, as Songalia uncorked a thermos bottle for Dr. Florencia Herrera, who boarded in said Normal Hall, the hot water in said container splashed in such a way that part of it landed on his left eye, thereby hurting the same. Dr. Herrera then gave him the corresponding emergency medical treatment, but Songalia stopped working from the next day, although he resumed work on June 11, 1956. Subsequently, the injured left eye developed "glaucoma . . . secondary to dislocated lens," which, according to Dr. Salvador Degollacion, a resident physician of the North Philippine General Hospital who treated him on April 21, 1959, was "the result of the nature of (his) employment" and resulted in "permanent total disability" of said eye. On December 7, 1959, Songalia filed the corresponding notice of injury or sickness and claim for compensation with Regional Office No. 3 of the Department of Labor, which, by latter dated February 12, 1960, asked the Solicitor General to submit a report on said injury or sickness. This report was filed on February 26, 1960. Soon thereafter, or on March 17, 1960, the Regional Administrator of said office issued an award directing the Government to pay P1,387.37 to Songalia as compensation and P14.00 to said Office, as fee under Section 55 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, as amended.

Petitioner herein moved for a reconsideration of said award, which was denied. The matter was forwarded, therefore, to the Workmen’s Compensation Commission, a member of which rendered a decision affirming the award, except as to its amount, which was reduced to P1,385.00. On motion for reconsideration of petitioner herein said decision was affirmed by the Workmen’s Compensation Commission sitting en banc. Hence, this appeal by certiorari. The issues therein raised by petitioner appellant may be summed up, as follows: 1) that the Philippine Normal Hall, as an adjunct of the Philippine Normal College, is exempt from the operation of the Workmen’s Compensation Act; 2) that the injury sustained by Songalia was not connected with his employment; and 3) that his claim under said Act should have been deemed controverted by the Government.

With respect to the first issue, section 3 of Act No. 3428, as amended, provides:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"This Act shall also be applicable to mounted passengers in the service of the National Government and all its political subdivisions and to the employees and laborers employed in public works and in the industrial concerns of the Government and to all other persons performing manual labor in the service of the National Government and its political subdivisions and instrumentalities: Provided, however, That laborers and employees insured with the Government Service Insurance System, and their dependents when entitled to the benefits of the said insurance system shall, in addition to the same be entitled to the benefits granted by this Act."cralaw virtua1aw library

As assistant cook in the Philippine Normal Hall, claimant Songalia was "performing manual labor in the service of the National Government," or, at least, of one of its "instrumentalities," and, hence, is entitled to the benefits of the Workmen’s Compensation Act.

As regards the second issue, petitioner’s communication to the Regional Administrator dated February 26, 1960, gives the following version of the circumstances under which the injury in question was sustained:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

". . . It appears that sometime in the morning of . . . June 6, 1956, the . . . claimant was requested by one Dr. Florencia Herrera, a female boarder of the Normal Hall to get or her a thermos bottle full of hot water which the complainant complied with. Instead of merely delivering the thermos bottle with its hot water contents to Dr. Herrera, claimant, perhaps as an uncalled for gesture of courtesy himself opened the cork stop of the thermos bottle in a negligent manner, by reason of which some of the scalding liquid splashed and landed on his left eye . . ."cralaw virtua1aw library

It should be noted that Dr. Herrera was a boarder in the Philippine Normal Hall, and that, as such, she was entitled to avail herself of the services of Songalia, and this is conceded by petitioner. It is apparent, also, from the latter’s version, that Songalia’s injury was the result of an "accident arising out of and in the course of his employment." The allegation to the effect that Songalia’s act, in uncorking the bottle of thermos, was an "uncalled for act of courtesy’ — even if we admitted it was "uncalled for," which we cannot admit, considering that Dr. Herrera was a lady and a boarder of the Normal Hall does not detract from the fact that the injury was the result of an "accident arising out of and in the course of his employment." Again, petitioner’s allegation of the "negligent manner" in which Songalia opened the bottle is not sufficient to relieve the petitioner from liability under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, for the same requires therefor a "notorious negligence" (section 4, Act 3428, as amended), which has not been pleaded in the aforementioned communication of petitioner herein.

Referring now to the last issue raised by the latter, the resolution appealed from states:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

". . . the claim for compensation filed by the claimant against the respondent was transmitted by the Regional Office No. 3, Manila, to the respondent on January 8, 1960, together with W.C.C. Forms Nos. 3, 4 & 5 for accomplishment and return to said office pursuant to the provisions of Section 37 of the Act; and that, upon receipt of the claim, the respondent, instead of accomplishing and submitting said forms, sent to the Regional Office a 1st indorsement dated January 18, 1960, which reads as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Respectfully returned to the Regional Administrator, Department of Labor, R. Hidalgo-Mendoza St., Manila, with the information that the matter is being submitted to the Solicitor General for appropriate Action."cralaw virtua1aw library

Under these circumstances, it is but logical to conclude that the Office of the Solicitor General must have been duly informed of said claim on or before the Regional Office received said indorsement on January 25, 1960. That being so, and because under Section 45 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, as amended, an employer is given 10 days from knowledge of the accident within which to controvert the right to the compensation of the claimant, the controversion contained in the letter of respondent’s counsel dated February 26, 1960 was filed at least one month from the time the Office of the Solicitor General had acquired knowledge of the claim filed by the claimant."cralaw virtua1aw library

The truth of the above facts is not contested by petitioner herein. What is more, the Solicitor General admits having received on February 15, 1960, the letter of the Regional Administrator, dated February 12, 1960, asking the submission of the requisite report of accident, and that such report was not filed until February 26, 1960, or eleven (11) days after receipt of said communication. Thus, it is clear that petitioner has not controverted Songalia’s claim within the period of ten (10) days prescribed in section 45 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act. In pursuance of the provisions thereof, petitioner is deemed, therefore, to have renounced the right to controvert said claim, unless it "submits reasonable grounds for the failure to make the necessary reports, on the basis of which grounds the (Workmen’s Compensation) Commissioner may reinstate his right to controvert" the claim. However, petitioner has neither sought a reinstatement of such right, nor submitted "reasonable grounds" for its "failure to make the necessary report" within the statutory period. Accordingly, it may not controvert the aforementioned claim upon the ground, either of prescription of action or of negligence on claimant’s part, these defenses being necessarily deemed waived in consequence of the constructive renunciation of the right aforementioned.

WHEREFORE, the decision and resolution appealed from are hereby affirmed, without special pronouncement as to costs. It is so ordered.

Bengzon, C.J., Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Barrera, Paredes, Regala and Makalintal, JJ., concur.

Padilla, Reyes, J.B.L. and Dizon, JJ., took no part.




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






April-1963 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-15699 April 22, 1963 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PROCOPIO CADERAO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15807 April 22, 1963 - INES SANTOS, ET AL. v. MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT OF CALOOCAN, RIZAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16357 April 22, 1963 - MAGDALENA ESTATE, INC., ET AL. v. FRANCISCO BANGILAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17324 April 22, 1963 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. CLASICO TAJANLAÑGIT

  • G.R. No. L-17610 April 22, 1963 - JESUS R. FRANCO, ET AL. v. MONTE DE PIEDAD AND SAVINGS BANK

  • G.R. No. L-17738 April 22, 1963 - LUPO L. DIÑOSO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18080 April 22, 1963 - TAN KIM KEE v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18198 April 22, 1963 - LUZ BARRANTA v. INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER COMPANY OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. L-18610 April 22, 1963 - ANGEL BERMUDEZ, ET AL. v. MARGARITA FERNANDO

  • G.R. No. L-14853 April 23, 1963 - SANTIAGO LOPEZ, ET AL. v. JUAN MAGALLANES

  • G.R. No. L-15808 April 23, 1963 - FAUSTA AGCANAS, ET AL. v. BRUNO MERCADO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17467 April 23, 1963 - NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY v. JOSE YULO TOBIAS

  • G.R. No. L-17840 April 23, 1963 - MARIA ELENA ARAULLO v. MONTE DE PIEDAD SAVINGS BANK, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-17880 and L-17881 April 23, 1963 - MALAYA WORKERS UNION, ET AL. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17908 April 23, 1963 - FLORENCIO MORENO v. HIGINIO MACADAEG

  • G.R. No. L-18206 April 23, 1963 - CIRIACO NOBEL v. VICENTE CABIJE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18263 April 23, 1963 - APOLINARIO DACANAY, ET AL. v. JAVIER PABALAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18371 April 23, 1963 - FIL-HISPANO LABOR UNION, ET AL. v. AGUSTIN P. MONTESA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18587 April 23, 1963 - APOLINARIO VALERIO v. SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE & NATURAL RESOURCES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18810 April 23, 1963 - MD TRANSIT & TAXI CO., INC., ET AL. v. BIENVENIDO DE GUZMAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18848 April 23, 1963 - ACOJE WORKERS’ UNION v. NATIONAL MINES AND ALLIED WORKERS’ UNION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18957 April 23, 1963 - VILLA-REY TRANSIT, INC. v. ELOY B. BELLO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20522 April 23, 1963 - APOLONIO GONZAGA v. CONRADO D. SENO

  • G.R. No. L-16998 April 24, 1963 - DANIEL ROMERO, ET AL. v. PALAWAN MANGANESE MINE, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17820 April 24, 1963 - LAND SETTLEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. GARCIA PLANTATION CO., INC.

  • G.R. No. L-18969 April 24, 1963 - KAPISANAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA MANILA RAILROAD CO., ET AL. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

  • A.C. No. 266 April 27, 1963 - PAZ ARELLANO TOLEDO v. JESUS B. TOLEDO

  • G.R. No. L-15731 April 27, 1963 - TAYTAY METHODIST COMMUNITY CHURCH, INC. v. ELADIO M. REYES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17501 April 27, 1963 - MEAD JOHNSON & COMPANY v. N. V. J. VAN DORP, LTD., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18117 April 27, 1963 - ROMAN GUERRERO v. JUAN AGUSTIN ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18258 April 27, 1963 - GUILLERMO COMEDA v. E. Q. CAJILOG, ETC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18401 April 27, 1963 - PERFECTO JABALDE v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK

  • G.R. No. L-18513 April 27, 1963 - SY HA, ET AL. v. EMILIO L. GALANG

  • G.R. No. L-18563 April 27, 1963 - RADIOWEALTH, INC. v. JOSE LAVIN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18815 April 27, 1963 - J. M. TUASON & CO., INC. v. FEDERICO CADAMPOG

  • G.R. No. L-19343 April 27, 1963 - CRISPULO D. BELMI, ET AL. v. COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-12320 April 29, 1963 - VICENTA CORPUS, ET AL. v. JOSE A. V. CORPUS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15581 April 29, 1963 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MOROS TANJI AMBRAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15927 April 29, 1963 - VICENTE MARTELINO v. MAXIMO ESTRELLA

  • G.R. No. L-16924 April 29, 1963 - ANTONIA A. YEE v. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SCHOOL

  • G.R. No. L-17361 April 29, 1963 - FRANKLIN BAKER COMPANY OF THE PHILIPPINES v. SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM

  • G.R. No. L-17846 April 29, 1963 - EDUARDA DUELLOME v. BONIFACIO GOTICO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18716 April 29, 1963 - CLEMENTE SUMCAD v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18835 April 29, 1963 - GASPAR DUMLAO v. MARCELO T. DOMINGO

  • G.R. No. L-19019 April 29, 1963 - MALAN BROTHERS WATCHMAN AGENCY v. MAGDALENO CONANAN, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 376 April 30, 1963 - JOSEFINA ROYONG v. ARISTON OBLENA

  • G.R. No. L-10963 April 30, 1963 - COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. AMERICAN RUBBER COMPANY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-13739 April 30, 1963 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. CARLOS MORAN SISON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14264 April 30, 1963 - RAYMUNDO B. TAN, ET AL. v. MUNICIPALITY OF PAGBILAO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14302 April 30, 1963 - JOSE MARGATE v. JULIA RABACAL

  • G.R. No. L-14752 April 30, 1963 - FRANCISCO R. CARIÑO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15639 April 30, 1963 - INDUSTRIAL COMMERCIAL AGRICULTURAL WORKERS ORGANIZATION v. JOSE S. BAUTISTA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15698 April 30, 1963 - IN RE: ALEJANDRO SOMOZA v. ALICIA S. BANOGAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15876 April 30, 1963 - MANUEL R. SOLIVIO v. FRANCISCO ARELLANO

  • G.R. No. L-16307 April 30, 1963 - FEDERICA ABALLE v. FORTUNATO SANTIAGO

  • G.R. No. L-16428 April 30, 1963 - LEALDA ELECTRIC CO., INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16620 April 30, 1963 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALEJANDRO BUMATAY, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-16688-90 April 30, 1963 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PACITA MADRIGAL-GONZALES

  • G.R. No. L-16790 April 30, 1963 - URBANO MAGBOO, ET AL. v. DELFIN BERNARDO

  • G.R. No. L-16880 April 30, 1963 - LUNETA MOTOR COMPANY v. ANTONIO MENENDEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16922 April 30, 1963 - IN RE: ROSE C. ELLIS v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-17173 April 30, 1963 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. THEODORE (TED) LEWIN

  • G.R. No. L-17431 April 30, 1963 - IN RE: REMEDIO SAN LUIS DE CASTRO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-17447 April 30, 1963 - GONZALO PUYAT & SONS, INC. v. CITY OF MANILA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17527 April 30, 1963 - SUN BROTHERS APPLIANCES, INC. v. DAMASO P. PEREZ

  • G.R. No. L-17791 April 30, 1963 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE TAN

  • G.R. No. L-17813 April 30, 1963 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. L-17916 April 30, 1963 - MAXIMO GOMEZ v. FOOKIEN TIMES COMPANY, INC.

  • G.R. No. L-17928 April 30, 1963 - SERVILLANO DE LA CRUZ, JR., ET AL. v. ASUNCION D. STA. MARIA

  • G.R. No. L-17938 April 30, 1963 - ESPERIDION TOLENTINO v. ADELA ONGSIAKO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17946 April 30, 1963 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO PRIETO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18081 April 30, 1963 - SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION v. E. SORIANO, ETC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18044 April 30, 1963 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AMBROSIA VALLE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18174 April 30, 1963 - FELIX LACSON v. FELINA LOZADA ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18220 April 30, 1963 - IN RE: ROBERT MCCULLOCH DICK v. HELEN C. DICK, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18270 April 30, 1963 - SAN PABLO OIL FACTORY, INC., ET AL. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18284 April 30, 1963 - IN RE: ANA ISABEL HENRIETTE ANTONIA CONCEPCION GEORGIANA v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-18332 April 30, 1963 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ESTANISLAO M. IGNACIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18481 April 30, 1963 - JOSE B. ESCUETA v. CITY MAYOR, ET AL.