G.R. No. L-31982




Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila SECOND DIVISION G.R. No. L-31982 March 14, 1979 CARLOS CORDOVA, petitioner, vs. THE PROVINCIAL SHERIFF OF ILOILO, WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION UNIT, REGIONAL OFFICE NO. VII, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, ILOILO CITY, and ROSEMINDA VDA. DE DEJANDO in her behalf and in behalf of her minor son Jose Mari Dejando, respondents. Iglesias & Associates for petitioner. CONCEPCION JR., J.: Petition for certiorari with pre injunction raising as lone principal issue the alleged abuse of discretion committed by the Workmen's Compensation Unit, Regional Office No. VII, Department of Labor, Iloilo City (Acting Referee Demetrio P. Correa in rendering a decision against petitioner Carlos Cordova, in WCU Case No. 12756, entitled: "Roseminda Vda. de Dejando, for herself and in behalf of her son, Jose Mari Dejando, claimants vs. Antero Edrosolano and Carlos Cordova, respondents, (for the death of husband)", notwithstanding that said respondent Workmen's Compensation Unit never acquired jurisdiction over the person of petitioner for failure to serve the latter with summons in the aforementioned case. This Court in its resolutions dated May 21, 1970, required respondents to answer the petition and issued a temporary restraining order enjoy the respondent Provincial Sheriff of Iloilo, et al., from continuing with the sale at public auction scheduled on May 22, 1970, of the properties of petitioner described in the notice of sale at public auction dated April 28, 1970, issued in Workmen's Compensation Unit Case No. 12756. The private respondents Dejandos filed an urgent motion for extension of time to file answer on May 29, 1970 and filed their answer on June 16, 1970. The petitioner, on June 10, 1970, filed with this Court supplementary annexes consisting of three documents, to wit: 1. Annex "H", Certification issued by Transportation Inspector of Public Service Co on, Iloilo, showing that "Ame" Taxi Co. was formerly owned and operated by Antero Edrosolano of Jaro, Iloilo City, had been transfer to Manuel Bellosillo of Iloilo City, up to the present, by virtue of a decision granted by the Honorable Public Service Co on in a Sale dated October 19, 1966, under Case No. 66-6073; 1 2. Annex "I", Certification issued by Land Transportation Commission Registrar, Iloilo City, showing that Mr. Manuel Bellosillo of Iloilo City is the registered owner of Ame Taxi for the current year 1970, and not the petitioner Carlos Cordova; 2 3. Annex "J", Order of dismissal of Criminal Case No. 38903, against accused Luis Jimenez, a passenger of Ame Taxi who allegedly shot to death driver Demetrio Dejando, husband of c t Roseminda Vda. de Dejando in WCU Case No. 12756. 3 When this Court heard the case on June 10, 1970, only the counsel for petitioner appeared and was given 15 days to submit memorandum in lieu of oral argument, said memorandum was submitted on June 25, 1970. Respondent WCU Region VII, Iloilo City, through counsel filed a motion for extension of time to file answer on June 17, 1970, but said answer is not in the rollo of the case. The private respondents filed their reply, to the memorandum filed by petitioner, on August 4, 1970. Uncontroverted facts of record, are: (1) Because Demetrio Dejando was shot by one Luis Jimenea a passenger, in the early morning of February 16, 1967, while the former was driving a Ame taxi private respondent Roseminda Vda. de Dejando, for herself and in behalf of her minor son Jose Mari filed a death compensation claim on February 20, 1967, against allegedly operator Antero Edrosolano and owner (petitioner) Carlos Cordovan respectively with the respondent Workmen's Compensation Unit, Regional Office No. VII, Iloilo City, docketed as WCU Case No. 12756, entitled "Roseminda Vda. de Dejando, for and in behalf of her son, Jose Mari Dejando, claimants vs. Antero Edrosolano and Carlos Cordovan respondents". 4 (2) That respondent Workmen's Compensation Unit issued summons in WCU Case No. 12756, on April 11, 1967, directed to "Mr. Antero Edrosolano and/or Carlos Cordovan c/o Atty. Cirilo Y. Ganzon, Isnart Street, Iloilo city". 5 (3) That petitioner claims that were not served on him as shown by the records of WCU Case No. 12756, and that respondent Workmen's Compensation Unit, through referee Atty. Demetrio P. Correa, as injunction over the person of petitioner, proceeded with the of the case and rendered decision therein adverse to petitioner. 6 (4) That in October, 1968, petitioner was served with a copy of a writ of execution issued by Atty. Celerino Grecia 11, Chief of the Workmen's Compensation Unit, Office No. VII, Department of Labor, Iloilo City, to enforce judgment in WCU Case No. 12756. 7 (5) That on October 31, 1968, petitioner filed with respondent Workmen's Compensation Unit, a appearance and motion for reconsideration, questioning the jurisdiction of respondent Workmen's Compensation Unit over the petitioner on the ground that he never received summons in WCU Case No. 12756, that he did not know he was a respondent in said case, and that the lawyers who appeared in said case representing themselves as appearing for petitioner were never hired by him because he did not know of the existing case against him until a copy of the writ of execution in the already decided case was served upon him in October of 1968, and thereby asking respondent Workmen's Compensation Unit to set aside the decision in WCU Case No. 12756 for lack of jurisdiction over petitioner. 8 (6) That respondent Workmen's Compensation Unit ordered the private respondents Dejandos to reply or oppose petitioner's motion for special appearance and reconsideration. 9 (7) That petitioner's special appearance and motion for reconsideration was not acted upon and resolved by respondent Workmen's Compensation Unit, and instead respondent Provincial Sheriff of Iloilo showed his determination to enforce the writ of execution issued in WCU Case No. 12756, by levy ing upon the properties of petitioner and advertising the sale of the same scheduled on May 22, 1970. 10 (8) That after the decision in WCU Case No. 12756 was promulgated by the respondent Workmen's Compensation Unit, the lawyers supposed to represent Antero Edrosolano and Carlos Cordova (Cordova as petitioner in this case denied that he hired those lawyers to represent him and he did not know of the existence of WCU Case No. 12756 at that time) filed a motion for reconsideration of the decision which was denied by respondent Workmen's Compensation Unit in its order dated August 10, 1968, on the ground that although at the rehearing granted only Antero Edrosolano appeared to testify and petitioner Carlos Cordova did not appear (supporting petitioner's allegation that he did not know of WCU Case No. 12756 at that time), and Edrosolano testified that petitioner Carlos Cordova had nothing to do with the operation of the Ame taxi the respondent Workmen's Compensation Unit believed that the deceased Demetrio Dejando was really hired as driver by Edrosolano, and hence the motion for reconsideration was denied and the decision of June 26, 1968 revived completely. 11 (9) When the property of petitioner Carlos Cordova was scheduled to be sold at public auction on July 8, 1969, by virtue of the writ of execution issued by respondent Workmen's Compensation Unit on October 8, 1968, petitioner filed Civil Case No. 7960, for injunction, with the Court of First Instance of Iloilo on June 5, 1969 trying to stop the execution of the decision of respondent Workmen's Compensation Unit in WCU Case No. 12756, but the Court of First Instance of Iloilo, Branch I (Judge Emigdio V. Nietes), in its order dated March 9, 1970, dismissed the petition on the ground that the Court of First Instance did not have jurisdiction to enjoin the writ of execution issued by respondent Workmen's Compensation Unit in WCU Case No. 12756. 12 (10) Upon the republication of the sale at public auction of petitioner's properties and the re-schedule of sale by the respondent Provincial Sheriff on May 22, 1970, this petition for certiorari with p injunction was filed with this Court on May 20,1970. 13 As to the principal issue of whether or not petitioner received summon issued by the respondent Workmen's Compensation Unit in WCU Case No. 12756, a close scrutiny of the record of this case unmistakably shows a clear preponderance of evidence in favor of petitioner. The summon issued by the respondent Workmen's Compensation Unit, on April 11, 1967, was directed to "Mr. Antero Edrosolano and/or Carlos Cordova, c/o Atty. Cirilo Y. Ganzon, Isnart Street, Iloilo City. 14 It is immediately noticeable that such summons was not directed to the address of petitioner Carlos Cordova, whose address appearing in the Notice and Claim For Compensation In Death Cases, 15 is "La Granja La Paz, Iloilo City". This notice and claim was signed by private respondent Roseminda Vda. de Dejando. The respondent Dejando's claims that on March 10, 1967, a registered letter with registry receipt No. 14284 was sent by respondent Workmen's Compensation Unit to petitioner at La Granja La Paz, Iloilo, informing him of the notice for accident and sickness filed by respondents Dejandos and that no employer's report of accident was ever made by the petitioner, is of no moment to the issue of failure to serve summons on the petitioner in WCU Case No. 12756, because there certainly is a great difference between the Notice And Claims For Compensation In Death Cases executed by respondent Dejandos, 16 and the summons issued on April 11, 1967 by respondent Workmen's Compensation Unit in WCU Case No. 12756. 17 That no employer's report of accident was ever made by petitioner is understandable in view of his unrefuted claim that Ame taxi company was owned by Manuel Bellosillo of Iloilo City since October 9, 1966, 18 and at the time of the death of driver Dejando on February 16, 1967, petitioner had never been the owner nor operator of the 'Ame' taxi and, therefore, had never been the employer of Dejando. Clearly, therefore, there is no evidence that petitioner received the summons issued by the respondent Workmen's Compensation Unit in WCU Case No. 12756, because the address given in the summons was that of Atty. Ganzon, and not that of petitioner and Petitioner denied under oath that Attorney Ganzon was authorized to rep t him in WCU Case No. 12756. Another convincing circumstance in the resolution of this lame is that petitions never appealed before the respondent Workmen's Compensation Unit, at the original hearing in Case No. 12756, and not even during the bearing that was granted by Workmen's Compensation Unit after a motion for reconsidertion of the decision promulgated in said case when the respondent Workmen's Compensation Unit in its order dated August 30, 1968, categorically stated that petitioner never appeared and it was only Antero Edrosolano Who appeared and testified that petitioner had nothing whatsoever to do with the operation of the "Ame" taxi. 19 We therefore hold that respondent Workman's Compensation Unit never acquired jurisdiction over the person of petitioner for failure to serve the latter with the summons. WHEREFORE, the decision of respondent Workman's Compensation Unit, Regional Office No. VII, t of Labor, Iloilo City, in WCU Case No. 12756, in so far as it affects petitioner, is hereby set aside the writ, of execution issued therein against petition nullified and restraining the order issued herein made permanent with private respondents Dejandos. SO ORDERED. Santos and Abad Santos, JJ., concur. Fernando (Chairman) J. concurs on the express understanding that the right to collect the compensation due subsists against respondent Edrosolano in WCU Case No. 12756. Barredo, J., took no part. Separate Opinions AQUINO, J., concurring : I concur in the result because of the referee's finding that petitioner Carlos Cordova "is the owner of the taxi and the operator is Mr. Edrosolano, a very clear and simple operation of the kabit system" (p. 57, Rollo). Antero Edrosolano, as the franchised operator of the Ame Taxi using Cordova's car as a kabit was the employer of the deceased taxi driver, Demetrio Dejando, Cordova was not the employer. He was a silent partner. Cordova was notified of the claim for workmen's compensation by means of registered mail as shown in receipt No. 14284 dated March 10, 1967 sent to his address at La Granja La Paz, Iloilo (p. 91, Rollo). The summons addressed to his lawyer, Cirilo Y. Ganzon, is apparently in conformity with the rule that a notice of hearing may be sent to the party's counsel (Sec. 2, Rule 1 1 of the Workmen's Compensation Commission). Cordova's payment of P450 as the undertakers bill for the of the deceased driver (p. 16, Rollo) may be construed as an a on that he has some obligation in connection with the death of the cab driver who, however, was directly employed by his partner, Edrosolano it seems that there was no privity of contract Cordova and the driver. Hence, Cordova was not his employer and, therefore, was not liable to pay workmen's compensation to his heirs who entered into a compromise with the killer, Luis Jimenez, by accepting from him P4,750 as settlement of the case for homicide through reckless imprudence against Jimenea (p. 19, Cordova's brief herein). # Separate Opinions AQUINO, J., concurring : I concur in the result because of the referee's finding that petitioner Carlos Cordova "is the owner of the taxi and the operator is Mr. Edrosolano, a very clear and simple operation of the kabit system" (p. 57, Rollo). Antero Edrosolano, as the franchised operator of the Ame Taxi using Cordova's car as a kabit was the employer of the deceased taxi driver, Demetrio Dejando, Cordova was not the employer. He was a silent partner. Cordova was notified of the claim for workmen's compensation by means of registered mail as shown in receipt No. 14284 dated March 10, 1967 sent to his address at La Granja La Paz, Iloilo (p. 91, Rollo). The summons addressed to his lawyer, Cirilo Y. Ganzon, is apparently in conformity with the rule that a notice of hearing may be sent to the party's counsel (Sec. 2, Rule 1 1 of the Workmen's Compensation Commission). Cordova's payment of P450 as the undertakers bill for the of the deceased driver (p. 16, Rollo) may be construed as an a on that he has some obligation in connection with the death of the cab driver who, however, was directly employed by his partner, Edrosolano it seems that there was no privity of contract Cordova and the driver. Hence, Cordova was not his employer and, therefore, was not liable to pay workmen's compensation to his heirs who entered into a compromise with the killer, Luis Jimenez, by accepting from him P4,750 as settlement of the case for homicide through reckless imprudence against Jimenea (p. 19, Cordova's brief herein). #Footnotes 1 pp. 34-36, rollo 2 pp. 34,37, rollo. 3 pp. 34, 39, rollo. 4 pp. 1, 12,14, rollo. 5 pp. 13, rollo. 6 pp. 2,14-18, rollo. 7 pp. 2,19, rollo. 8 pp. 2-3,20-21, rollo. 9 pp..3, 23, rollo. 10 pp. 3, 24, rollo. 11 pp. 44; 55-58, rollo. 12 pp. 44-45; 72-75; 80, rollo. 13 pp. 1, 45, rollo 14 p. 13, rollo. 15 p. 12, rollo. 16 p. 12, rollo 17 p. 13, rollo 18 p. 36, rollo. 19 pp. 55-58, rollo. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation