Pabores v. Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation Commission
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Patricio Pabores, a mason-carpenter helper, sustained a fatal injury while employed by Union Construction Co., Inc. on a project for Liberty Oil Factory. While on the job site, Pabores was found unconscious with a bleeding thigh next to an airplane shock absorber that had been unearthed by workers. He was hospitalized and later died from gas gangrene. His heirs, including a legitimate daughter and two alleged natural children, filed a claim for compensation. 2. Procedural History: The heirs filed a claim for compensation with the Workmen's Compensation Commission (WCC). A referee denied the claim, ruling that Pabores' death did not arise out of his employment. The claimants appealed this decision to the Commissioner, who affirmed the referee's ruling. The heirs then sought to review and reverse the Commissioner's decision. 3. The Petition: The petitioners filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court, arguing that the referee failed to consider their memorandum, which contained crucial information about Pabores' declaration to his physician that he fell from a scaffolding. The respondents contended that the memorandum was filed late. The Supreme Court noted that while the petition for review was timely filed, the notice of appeal was filed with the Commission five days late, which is a fatal procedural defect under Rule 44 of the Rules of Court. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition without ruling on the merits of the compensation claim.
Issue(s)
Whether the heirs' memorandum, filed after the referee's decision was rendered, should have been considered. Whether the deceased's statement to the attending physician regarding the cause of his injury should be given more weight than the police report. Whether the appeal was perfected within the reglementary period.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed for failure to perfect the appeal within the reglementary period.
Ratio Decidendi
On the consideration of the memorandum: While the referee rendered the decision before receiving the claimants' memorandum, it was understandable as the memorandum was mailed on the same day the decision was due. However, a memorandum is not evidence and the referee may or may not consider it. The Court noted that the memorandum contained a statement from the deceased to his physician that he sustained the injury from a fall from a scaffolding, which was not in the police report. The Court stated that as between the injured laborer's statement (made without reason to lie) and the investigators' report based on conjectures, the former deserves more weight. Nevertheless, the Court reiterated that a memorandum is merely a note to aid memory and not evidence. On the weight of the deceased's statement: The Court acknowledged that no one saw the accident and only the deceased knew what transpired. It emphasized that the deceased's statement to the physician, made at a time when he had no reason to lie and expressed disinterest in taking action against his employer, should be given more weight than the police report based on mere conjectures and assumptions. This statement indicated the injury was sustained from a fall from a scaffolding. On the perfection of the appeal: The Court found that the appeal was not perfected within the reglementary period. Petitioners received the Commissioner's decision on February 4, 1957, and filed their petition for review with the Supreme Court on February 14, 1957. However, the notice of appeal was filed with the Commission only on February 19, 1957, which was five days late. Rule 44 of the Rules of Court requires filing both the petition for review with the Supreme Court and the notice of appeal with the Commission within ten (10) days from notice of the decision. The Court held that this error was fatal to the present action, citing Martha Lumber Co., Inc. v. Lagradante et al.
Main Doctrine
The failure to file a notice of appeal with the Workmen's Compensation Commission within the reglementary period of ten (10) days from notice of the decision, despite the timely filing of a petition for review with the Supreme Court, is fatal to the action.