Aquino v. Conato
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioners employed the deceased Pablo Conato as a laborer. While rendering overtime work on April 6, 1959, he was accidentally hit by a steel cable tied to a log, causing instantaneous death due to severe injuries. His mother, respondent Pilar Chaves Conato, filed a claim for compensation under Act 3428. Petitioners moved to dismiss, alleging that the claimant had already received P1,148.16 and had waived all claims. Procedural History: The chief hearing officer found the claim compensable and ordered petitioners to pay the balance of P1,048.64 plus burial expenses and administrative costs. Petitioners' motion for review was denied. They then filed a petition for review with the Workmen's Compensation Commission (WCC), arguing error in adjudging them liable for funeral expenses and in not declaring the claimant partially dependent. The Petition: The WCC modified the hearing officer's decision, ordering petitioners to pay P848.64 as unpaid compensation balance and P26.00 as fees. The WCC computed the total compensation due as P1,996.80 (40% of P24.00 average weekly wage for 208 weeks), deducting the P1,148.16 already paid. Petitioners' motion for reconsideration was denied, leading to the instant appeal.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Pilar Chaves Conato was totally or only partially dependent upon her deceased son, Pablo. Whether the alleged waiver made by respondent Pilar Chaves Conato bars her right to recover the unpaid balance of the compensation due to her in accordance with law.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Workmen's Compensation Commission, ordering petitioners to pay the unpaid balance of compensation and fees.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of dependency: The Court held that total dependency is not inconsistent with the receipt of nominal gifts or minor income from other sources. Even if the claimant received support from another son or owned property, this does not sufficiently prove partial dependency if she regularly received support from the deceased. The Court found that the reasons advanced by petitioners were insufficient to establish partial dependency. The regular support received from the deceased was considered the primary basis for determining dependency. Therefore, the presumption of total dependency, in the absence of sufficient proof to the contrary, was maintained. On the issue of waiver: The Court ruled that even if a waiver was executed, it cannot exempt petitioners from liability for the unpaid balance of compensation. This is based on Section 7 of Act 3428, as amended, which declares null and void any contract or devise intended to exempt the employer from all or part of the liability created by the Act. The law's intent is to protect employees and their dependents, and such waivers are against public policy and the spirit of the Workmen's Compensation Law. Thus, the waiver did not extinguish the employer's statutory obligation.
Main Doctrine
A waiver, even if validly executed, cannot exempt an employer from liability for unpaid compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, as Section 7 of the Act declares null and void any contract or devise intended to exempt the employer from liability.