Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-17939 May 30, 1962
RICARDO CARLOS, petitioner,
vs.
MARIA DE LA ROSA, ET AL., respondents.
Florencio Carlos for petitioner.
Maria de la Rosa for and in his own behalf as respondent.
P. C. Villavieja and Edgardo de la Cruz for respondent Workmen's Compensation Commission.
BAUTISTA ANGELO, J.:
On June 1, 1959, while Celso Aroyo was working as a laborer with a daily wage of P4.00 in the construction of a church somewhere in Sampaloc, Manila, he fell from a scaffolding nine meters high from the ground where he was found unconscious. He was hurriedly taken to the North General Hospital where he died upon arrival. His employer was Ricardo Carlos who undertook the construction under a contract entered into between him and the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila. As a result, Aroyo's widow filed a claim for compensation with Labor Regional Office No. 3 situated in Manila.
On June 24, 1959, said office sent a letter to Ricardo Carlos informing him of the widow's claim and requesting that he submit, duly filled out, employer's report concerning the accident as required by Section 37 of the Workmen's Compensation Act (No. 3428), as amended. This request was reiterated in a subsequent letter sent on July 17, 1959, which was received by Carlos on July 27, 1959. Despite said request, Carlos failed to submit the report in disregard of the requirement of the law.
On October 7, 1959, based on the police report and other pertinent record in his office, the regional administrator issued an award in favor of the claimant in the amount of P2,611.00, copy of which was received by Carlos on January 11, 1960.1äwphï1.ñët
Carlos filed a petition for reconsideration alleging that if he failed to appear or to answer the claim it was due to the fact that he was never summoned nor notified of any hearing thereof, so that judgment was rendered against him without due process of law. He said that he had a good defense to counteract the widow's claim and desired to be given an opportunity to prove it. This was denied by the regional administrator. Carlos then filed a petition for review with the Workmen's Compensation Commission, which in turn was denied by Commissioner Nieves Baens del Rosario. Carlos' appeal to the commission en banc was also denied. Hence, this petition for review.
Petitioner contends that the regional administrator as well as the Workmen's Compensation Commission acted without jurisdiction in deciding the claim for compensation filed against him for the reason that the same was heard without having been notified thereof or without having been served with summons as required by law advising him that, if he should fail to appear or answer, judgment by default would be taken against him.
It appears that this is the same issue he raised not only before the regional administrator when he filed his motion for reconsideration but also before the Workmen's Compensation Commission on appeal, and on both occasions his plea was overruled on the main ground that he failed to controvert the right of compensation of the claimant within 10 days from notice of the accident or of the claim for compensation as relayed to him by the regional office in charge of the case. Thus, on this point, Commissioner del Rosario made the following comment:
It appears that despite the two letters of the Regional Office dated June 24, 1959 and July 17, 1959, which were directed to and received by the respondent, the latter refused to submit the required Employer's Report and Physician's Report (WCC Forms 3 & 4, respectively). For this reason, and considering the evidence then in the hands of the Regional Administrator, he rendered an award dated October 7, 1959, in favor of the claimant and her minor child in the amount of P2,611.00 (including burial expenses in the amount of P115.00). The respondent received the award on January 11, 1960. Since no written petition for review had been submitted within the statutory period of 15 days, the award became final and executory. Despite this, however, the Regional Administrator, in a letter to the respondent dated February 2, 1960, and received on February 16, 1960, gave the latter another period of 10 days within which to effect payment with the warning that a writ of execution of the award will follow in case of failure to pay.
We find no reason to disagree with the foregoing comment. Indeed, the same finds support in Section 45 of Act No. 3428, as amended, which provides in part:
SEC. 45. Compensation, how payable.
x x x x x x x x x
In case the employer decides to controvert the right to compensation, he shall, either on or before the fourteenth day of disability or within ten days after he has knowledge of the alleged accident, file a notice with the Commission, on a form prescribed by him, that compensation is not being paid, giving the name of the claimant, name of the employer, date of the accident, and the reason why compensation is not being paid. Failure on the part of the employer or the insurance carrier to comply with this requirement shall constitute a renunciation of his tight to controvert the claim unless he submits reasonable grounds for the failure to make the necessary reports, on the basis of which grounds the Commissioner may reinstate his right to controvert the claim. . . .
This ruling of the Commission also finds support in the case of Victorias Milling Co., Inc. v. Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, G.R. No. L-10533, promulgated May 13, 1957, wherein this Court said:
Failure on the part of the employer to file a seasonable notice of controversion of the right of the employees to compensation, as required by Sec. 45 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, as amended, constitutes a waiver, by operation of law, of his right to controvert the employee's claim for compensation on non-jurisdictional grounds, and such legal effect does not violate the requirements of due process. Under the circumstances, the remedy of the employer is to seek the reinstatement of his right to controvert the employee's claim by submitting reasonable grounds or proving excusable negligence before the Commissioner.
Petitioner has not given any plausible reason that would entitle him to the reinstatement of his right to controvert the claim other than his contention that action was taken against him without having been served any formal summons as required by the rules of the Workmen's Compensation Commission. But such reason was found to be unsatisfactory because the right he was claiming is only given to one who has not waived his right to controvert as required by law.
WHEREFORE, the award appealed from is affirmed, without pronouncement as to costs.
Padilla, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Paredes, Dizon and Regala, JJ., concur.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
