Bernardo v. Pascual
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns a claim for compensation filed by the widow and children of Pedro Pascual, who died as a result of an accident while felling a tree within a lumber concession. Pascual was working in the woods with two other loggers, Rogelio Bacane and Martin Quinto, who were admittedly in the employ of the petitioner, Lino P. Bernardo. Upon hearing the sound of the falling tree, Bacane and Quinto discovered Pascual prostrate and bleeding, and he subsequently died from a fractured skull. 2. Procedural History: The widow of the deceased filed a claim for compensation with the Workmen's Compensation Commission on March 31, 1955, initially against Bernardo Sawmill. This claim was later amended on February 6, 1956, to include Lino P. Bernardo, the timber concessionaire and owner/operator of the sawmill, as a respondent. Bernardo denied any employer-employee relationship with the deceased and raised the defense of prescription. A referee denied the claim, but upon review, a commissioner reversed this decision, ordering Bernardo to pay compensation, burial expenses, and fees. Bernardo's motion for reconsideration was denied, leading to the present petition. 3. The Petition: This case comes before the Supreme Court on a petition for certiorari filed by Lino P. Bernardo, seeking to review the decision of the Workmen's Compensation Commission. Bernardo argues that the Commission abused its discretion in reversing the referee's decision and finding an employer-employee relationship. He also contends that the claim was filed out of time and that he was not a lumber concessionaire at the time of the incident. The petition challenges the Commission's factual findings regarding employment and the timeliness of the claim, asserting that the amended claim relates back to the original filing date and that the finding of employment is supported by substantial evidence.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent Commissioner abused its discretion in reversing the referee's decision and finding an employer-employee relationship between the petitioner and the deceased. Whether the claim for compensation was barred by prescription.
Ruling
The decision of the Workmen's Compensation Commission is affirmed. The petitioner is ordered to pay the claimants compensation and burial expenses, and to pay fees to the Workmen's Compensation Fund.
Ratio Decidendi
On the employer-employee relationship: The Court found that petitioner failed to substantiate his charge of abuse of discretion. Testimonies of admitted employees Rogelio Bacane and Martin Quinto, who were working with the deceased at the time of the accident, clearly indicated an employer-employee relationship. Furthermore, the deceased, Bacane, and Quinto received their wages from Emilio Bautista, petitioner's "Katiwala." Even if Bautista were a forest guard appointed by the Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources, such guards are still considered employees of the lumber concessionaires, as established in Martha Lumber Mill vs. Lagradante, et al.. The respondent Commission's finding of an employer-employee relationship, being a finding of fact supported by substantial evidence, is deemed final and conclusive upon the Court, as per Magdrigal Shipping Co. vs. Del Rosario, et al. and other cited cases. On the prescription of the claim: The Court held that the claim was not barred by prescription. The original claim was filed on March 31, 1955, within the three-month period from the employee's death as prescribed by Section 24 of the Workmen's Compensation Act. The subsequent amendment on February 6, 1956, merely specified the real party in interest (Lino P. Bernardo) who was the owner and operator of the sawmill, in accordance with Section 2, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court. This amendment did not introduce a new cause of action but merely made the respondent more determinate, thus relating back to the date of the original claim. The Court also noted that petitioner's claim of becoming a concessionaire only on October 13, 1955, was unavailing, as he was a partner in the concession prior to that date and became liable for partnership debts under Article 1840 of the new Civil Code.
Main Doctrine
The finding of the respondent Commission that the deceased was the petitioner's employee at the time of his death, being a finding of fact supported by substantial evidence, is final and conclusive. Amendments to a claim that merely specify the real party in interest relate back to the date of the original claim, provided no new cause of action is introduced.