Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1968 > January 1968 Decisions > G.R. No. L-24073 January 30, 1968 - PAMPANGA SUGAR MILLS v. REGINA GALANG VDA. DE ESPELETA, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-24073. January 30, 1968.]

PAMPANGA SUGAR MILLS, Petitioner, v. REGINA GALANG VDA. DE ESPELETA, PEDRO P. PELAEZ, as hearing referee of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission, and BENITO MACROHON, as Provincial Sheriff of Rizal, Respondents.

San Juan, Africa and Benedicto for the petitioner.

Felizardo R. Moreno for respondent R. Galang Vda. de Espeleta.

Manuel A. Calupitan for other respondents.


SYLLABUS


1. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION ACT; CLAIM FOR COMPENSATION; FAILURE TO CONTROVERT CLAIM; DEFENSE OF PRESCRIPTION UNAVAILING. — Where, as in the case at bar, there is an admission by petitioner of its failure to controvert the claim for compensation for the death of a deceased employee filed by his widow, which failure to controvert is fatal to its defense of the claim having been filed out of time, there would be no need to pass on the plea that a petition for review should be allowed on account of the failure to file the same on time. For at any rate, in view of its failure to controvert, the awards sought to be reviewed must be sustained.


D E C I S I O N


FERNANDO, J.:


In this petition for certiorari and mandamus, with preliminary injunction, filed on January 27, 1965, respondent Macrohon, as Provincial Sheriff of Rizal, was sought to be enjoined from continuing with the enforcement of a writ of execution issued by another respondent, Pedro F. Pelaez, acting as hearing referee of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission to enforce an award of compensation for the death of a deceased employee of petitioner in favor of his widow, the third respondent, Regina Galang Vda. de Espeleta. The petition was premised on the fact that while petitioner presented "good and valid defenses" against such a claim, a decision was rendered granting such compensation which was sought to be reconsidered, but the petition for review unfortunately was not filed within the reglementary period, a messenger of counsel for petitioner, "due to voluminous work in following up and filing of papers connected with other [equally] urgent legal matters" having failed because of alleged excusable neglect to file the same on time. Petitioner would have it that in its favor were good and valid defenses, namely: "a. That the complaint was filed out of the [two months] reglementary period prescribed by Section 24 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, the same having been filed [two years and six months] after the death of the deceased; and b. That the nature of the disease described as ‘Cerebral Infraction due to Internal Hemorrhage caused by Hypertension’ was in no logical way connected with the nature of the work performed by the said deceased." We issued, in a resolution dated February 1, 1965, the writ of preliminary injunction upon petitioner posting a bond of P2,000, and ordered respondents to answer within Ten (10) days from notice.

In a two-page answer of respondent widow, Galang Vda. de Espeleta, filed on February 22, 1965, there was an admission of a decision being rendered in her favor by a regional office of the Department of Labor coupled with a vehement denial that such an award "was rendered in total disregard of the defenses" set forth in the petition, the truth of the matter, according to her, being that the claim was meritorious. There was likewise a denial of the allegations of the petition insofar as it alleged "excusable negligence with the averment that the aforesaid respondent" has no knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth thereof." One of her special affirmative defenses was to the effect that the petition "is frivolous and merely intended for delay, for settled is the rule in this jurisdiction that certiorari is not the remedy to obtain the review of a decision which has already become final, . . ." It was respondent Galang Vda. de Espeleta’s prayer then that the writ of preliminary injunction be dissolved and that "the writ of execution be given due course to satisfy [her] just claims."cralaw virtua1aw library

The answer of respondent Pelaez, likewise filed on February 22, 1965, was much more detailed. Again there was an admission of the defenses mentioned by him but a denial that said defenses "are good and valid; on the contrary, the same was found to be unmeritorious and ineffective; . . ." 1 There was an admission likewise that a decision was rendered by respondent in favor of the widow Galang Vda. de Espeleta and a denial that it was "in total disregard of the defenses" of petitioner, the reason according to the answer being that such defenses which were fully considered were found "to be ineffective and unmeritorious;" to show which a copy of such decision was annexed to the answer. 2 The rest of the answer dealt mainly with a denial of the allegation of the petition that the failure to file the pleading for review on time could be considered an excusable neglect. The prayer was for a dissolution of the writ of preliminary injunction and the dismissal of the petition.

As above noted, the answer of respondent Pelaez included a copy of his decision as acting referee granting the award in favor of the claimant widow, respondent Galang Vda. de Espeleta, on her own behalf and as guardian of the minor child, the amount of P4,000.00 as death compensation benefits; minus the sum of P100.00 previously advanced and counsel’s fee in the amount of P200,00. The defense of prescription was rejected by respondent Pelaez. It was his view that with free medical and hospital assistance being extended to the deceased, the amount of P200.00 likewise having been given to the widow for funeral expenses plus the additional sum of P150.00 as financial help, there was "an advance payment and recognition of the right of the claimants to compensation benefits, and therefore, non- compliance of the provisions of said Section 24 is condoned."cralaw virtua1aw library

Moreover, such decision took note of the failure to controvert the claim. Thus: "Conversely, the evidence shows that the respondent has not complied with the regular requirement to report to this Office the death of the late Espeleta within a period of 14 days after such death, or 10 days from knowledge or notice thereof. Under the law and as held by our Supreme Court in the case of General Shipping Co. v. Workmen’s Compensation Commission, Et. Al. G.R. No. L-14936, July 30, 1960, the failure of the respondent to make the required report constitutes a renunciation of its right to controvert the claim, thereby constructively admitting that it is compensable. Having lost its right to controvert the claim and not having reinstated it in accordance with the procedure provided by law, the respondent cannot at this stage set up the defense of prescription. This is implied from its having lost its right to dispute the claim." 3

In the memorandum for petitioner in lieu of oral argument filed on June 4, 1965, there was an admission of its failure to controvert the claim of respondent Galang Vda. de Espeleta but an assertion relying primarily on American cases, citing in addition Manila Railroad Co. v. Workmen’s Compensation Commission, 4 that such failure cannot in any way validate an invalid claim. "Such must be valid and effectual in the first place."cralaw virtua1aw library

Such a plea is unavailing, the failure to controvert is fatal to its defense of the claim having been filed out of time. To speak of the past year alone, eight decisions may be cited opposed to such a contention of petitioner. 5 There would be no need therefore to pass on the plea that a petition for review should be allowed as there was an excusable negligence on account of the failure to file the same on time. For at any rate, in view of its failure to controvert, the award must be sustained.

It is worth noting that in National Development Co. v. Ayson, 6 the claimant was dismissed from employment on June 23, 1953, but it took her until February 27, 1961, or almost eight years later, before she started to have her rights enforced under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. In National Development Co. v. Rongavilla, 7 this Court, through Justice Zaldivar, stated: "On May 31, 1960, after almost nine (9) years from the time she was discharged by the National Development Co., the employee, through counsel, filed with the Regional Office No. 4 of the Department of Labor, Manila, a claim for disability compensation because of pulmonary tuberculosis." Nonetheless, it was held that such failure to file on time notwithstanding, "when it is shown that the employer has not manifested to the Workmen’s Compensation Commission his intention to controvert the right to compensation, . . ., the Workmen’s Compensation Commission can proceed to determine and decide the claim for compensation."cralaw virtua1aw library

In Manila Railroad Co. v. Workmen’s Compensation Commission, 8 there was this categorical declaration from this Court, through Justice Sanchez, that "petitioner’s failure to explain lack of controversion for an unreasonable length of time constitutes ‘a renunciation of his right to challenge the claim.’" 9 In the latest decision of this Court, the opinion being penned by Justice Castro, the principle is restated thus: "Having failed to file its controversion on time, the petitioner thereby waived or renounced ‘by operation of law’ its right to question the validity or reasonableness of the respondent’s claim for compensation.

WHEREFORE, this petition for certiorari and mandamus is denied and the writ of preliminary injunction lifted. With costs against petitioner.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P., Zaldivar, Sanchez, Ruiz Castro and Angeles, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. Answer of respondent Pelaez, par. 2.

2. Answer of respondent Pelaez, par. 3.

3. Decision of respondent Pelaez as acting referee, Annex 1 of Answer, p. 7. The following cases were cited: General Shipping Co v. Workmen’s Compensation Commission, Et. Al. G.R. No. L-14936, July 30, 1960; Bachrach Motor, Inc. v. Panaligan, Et Al., G.R. No. L-8589, May 25, 1956; Victorias Milling Co. v. Workmen’s Compensation Commission, Et Al., G.R. No. L-10533, May 13, 1957; National Development Co. v. Workmen’s Compensation Commission, Et Al., G. R. No. L-19863, April 29, 1964.

4. L-18388, June 28, 1963.

5. Nat. Dev. Co. v. Workmen’s Compensation Com., L-21724, April 27, 1967; Rep. of the Phil. v. Workmen’s Compensation Com., L-22650, April 28, 1967; Nat. Dev. Co. v. Ayson, L-23450, May 24, 1967; Manila Railroad Co. v. Workmen’s Compensation Com., L-21902, Aug. 10, 1967; Nat. Dev. Co. v. Rongavilla, L-21963, Aug. 30, 1967; Rio y Cia v. Workmen’s Compensation Com., L-21467, Aug. 30, 1967; Manila Railroad Co. v. Workmen’s Compensation Com., L-21544, Sept. 15, 1967; Talisay- Silay Milling Co. v. Workmen’s Compensation Com., L-22096, Sept. 29, 1967.

6. L-23450, May 24, 1967, 1967 B Phil. Law Dec. 427.

7. L-21963, Aug. 30, 1967, 1967 C Phil. Law Dec. 477.

8. L-21504, September 15, 1967.

9. ITEMCOP v. Florzo, L-21969, Aug. 31, 1966; NADECO v. Ayson, L-_23450, May 24, 1967; Manila Railroad Co. v. Workmen’s Compensation Commission, L-21900, Aug. 10, 1967.




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






January-1968 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-23542 January 2, 1968 - JUANA T. VDA. DE RACHO v. MUNICIPALITY OF ILAGAN

  • G.R. No. L-23988 January 7, 1968 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. LEONARDO S. VILLA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24922 January 2, 1968 - MELECIO DOREGO, ET AL. v. ARISTON PEREZ

  • G.R. No. L-24108 January 3, 1968 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. VICTORIAS MILLING CO., INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24190 January 8, 1968 - RAFAEL FALCOTELO, ET AL. v. RESTITUTO GALI, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24432 January 12, 1968 - NAZARIO EQUIZABAL v. APOLONIO G. MALENIZA

  • G.R. No. L-22294 January 12, 1968 - DIONISIA PARAMI VDA. DE CABASAG v. AMADOR P. SU, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22991 January 16, 1968 - BIENVENIDO CAPULONG v. ACTING COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

  • G.R. No. L-23293 January 16, 1968 - LUIS R. AYO, JR. v. MELQUIADES G. ILAO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24480 January 16, 1968 - LUCRECIO DE GUZMAN, ET AL. v. GAUDENCIO CLORIBEL

  • G.R. No. L-22794 January 16, 1968 - RUFO QUEMUEL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22018 January 17, 1968 - APOLONIO GALOFA v. NEE BON SING

  • G.R. No. L-22081 January 17, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SANTOS M. CABANERO

  • G.R. No. L-22605 January 17, 1968 - CEBU PORTLAND CEMENT COMPANY v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

  • G.R. No. L-23690 January 17, 1968 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. GREGORIO D. MONTEJO

  • G.R. No. L-24230 January 17, 1968 - EUGENIA TORNILLA v. TEODORICA FUENTESPINA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24434 January 17, 1968 - PEDRO REGANON, ET AL. v. RUFINO IMPERIAL

  • G.R. No. L-28459 January 17, 1968 - RAFAEL FALCOTELO, ET AL. v. MACARIO ASISTIO

  • G.R. No. L-22518 January 17, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICARDO ATENCIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23707 January 17, 1968 - JOSE A.V. CORPUS v. FEDERICO C. ALIKPALA

  • G.R. No. L-26103 January 17, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ELMER ESTRADA

  • G.R. No. L-19255 January 18, 1968 - PHILIPPINE AMERICAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY v. AUDITOR GENERAL

  • G.R. No. L-24707 January 18, 1968 - JOSE S. CAPISTRANO v. JUAN BOGAR

  • G.R. No. L-24946 January 18, 1968 - MARTINIANO P. VIVO v. GAUDENCIO CLORIBEL

  • G.R. No. L-23116 January 24, 1968 - IN RE: ANTONIO JAO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-24287 January 24, 1968 - PHILIPPINE EDUCATION COMPANY, INC. v. MANILA PORT SERVICE

  • G.R. No. L-22985 January 24, 1968 - BATANGAS TRANSPORTATION COMPANY v. GREGORIO CAGUIMBAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-18546 & L-18547 January 29, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PRUDENCIO OPINIANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19752 January 29, 1968 - LAND SETTLEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. AGUSTIN CARLOS

  • G.R. No. L-23555 January 29, 1968 - FLOREÑA TINAGAN v. VALERIO V. ROVIRA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22468 January 29, 1968 - PUAHAY LAO v. DIMTOY SUAREZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24607 January 29, 1968 - TOMAS TRIA TIRONA v. CITY TREASURER OF MANILA

  • G.R. No. L-24795 January 29, 1968 - PEDRO JIMENEA v. ROMEO G. GUANZON, ETC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20449 January 29, 1968 - ESPERANZA FABIAN, ET AL. v. SILBINA FABIAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28415 January 29, 1968 - ESTRELLO T. ONG v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23012 January 29, 1968 - MIGUEL CUENCO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23052 January 29, 1968 - CITY OF MANILA v. GENERO M. TEOTICO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28518 January 29, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LORENZO G. PADERNA

  • G.R. No. L-18971 January 29, 1968 - IN RE: ABUNDIO ROTAQUIO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-21718 January 29, 1968 - MILAGROS F. VDA. DE FORTEZA v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28392 January 29, 1968 - JOSE C. AQUINO, ET AL. v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27268 January 29, 1968 - JUANITA JUAN-MARCELO, ET AL. v. GO KIM PAH, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22145 January 30, 1968 - A. M. RAYMUNDO & CO. v. BENITO SYMACO

  • G.R. No. L-22686 January 30, 1968 - BERNARDO JOCSON, ET AL. v. REDENCION GLORIOSO

  • G.R. No. L-24073 January 30, 1968 - PAMPANGA SUGAR MILLS v. REGINA GALANG VDA. DE ESPELETA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27583 January 30, 1968 - MARGARITO J. LOFRANCO v. JESUS JIMENEZ, SR.

  • G.R. No. L-19565 January 30, 1968 - ESTRELLA DE LA CRUZ v. SEVERINO DE LA CRUZ

  • G.R. No. L-20316 January 30, 1968 - LEONCIA CABRERA DE CHUATOCO v. GREGORIO ARAGON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21855 January 30, 1968 - IN RE: ANDRES SINGSON v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-22973 January 30, 1968 - MAMBULAO LUMBER COMPANY v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22215 January 30, 1968 - GONZALO PUYAT & SONS, INC. v. PEDRO LABAYO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23702 January 30, 1968 - MARIA VILLAFLOR v. ARTURO REYES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23965 January 30, 1968 - FLOREÑA TINAGAN v. JOSE PERLAS, JR.

  • G.R. No. L-21423 January 31, 1968 - GO KIONG OCHURA, ET AL. v. COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23424 January 31, 1968 - LOURDES ARCUINO, ET AL. v. RUFINA APARIS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22968 January 31, 1968 - BENEDICTO BALUYOT, ET AL. v. EULOGIO E. VENEGAS

  • G.R. No. L-24859 January 31, 1968 - PABLO R. AQUINO v. GENERAL MANAGER OF THE GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM

  • G.R. No. L-25083 January 31, 1968 - JUSTINO QUETULIO, ET AL. v. NENA Q. DE LA CUESTA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20387 January 31, 1968 - JESUS P. MORFE v. AMELITO R. MUTUC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23170 January 31, 1968 - ALBINA DE LOS SANTOS v. ALEJANDRO RODRIGUEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23279 January 31, 1968 - ALEJANDRA CUARTO v. ESTELITA DE LUNA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23980 January 31, 1968 - JULIA SAN BUENAVENTURA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25472 January 31, 1968 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. ANGELA PURUGANAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24528 January 31, 1968 - DOMINGO T. LAO v. JOSE MOYA

  • G.R. No. L-22061 January 31, 1968 - DALMACIO URTULA, ET AL. v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-27776 January 31, 1968 - AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY v. MANILA PORT SERVICE

  • G.R. No. L-28476 January 31, 1968 - ALEJANDRO REYES v. ANATALIO REYES, ET AL.