Rio y Compania v. Workmen's Compensation Commission
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On August 20, 1959, the M/V Pilar II, owned and operated by Rio y Compañia, sank off Cabuli Island due to a typhoon, resulting in the death of many passengers and crew members. Virgilio Solis was among those reported dead, though his body was never recovered. Procedural History: On November 18, 1960, Vivencio Solis, father of Virgilio, filed a claim for death compensation. Rio y Compañia denied the claim, asserting that Virgilio was not an employee and was not on board. The mother, Remedios M. Solis, was later included as a claimant. The Hearing Officer dismissed the claim due to lack of employer-employee relationship. The Workmen's Compensation Commission (WCC) reversed this, finding Virgilio to be an apprentice-mate and holding Rio y Compañia liable for death benefits and damages. Rio y Compañia's motion for reconsideration, raising the defense of prescription for the first time, was denied by the WCC en banc. The Petition: Rio y Compañia filed a petition for review, questioning the WCC's rulings on prescription and the existence of an employer-employee relationship.
Issue(s)
Whether the Commission erred in ruling that the defense of prescription was not well-taken. Whether the Commission erred in finding that the relation of employer-employee existed between the company and Virgilio Solis.
Ruling
The judgment of the Workmen's Compensation Commission is affirmed in toto, holding Rio y Compañia liable for death compensation benefits and damages to the parents of the deceased Virgilio Solis.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of employer-employee relationship: The Court affirmed the WCC's finding that Virgilio Solis was an apprentice-mate of the M/V Pilar II at the time of the mishap. Despite his name not appearing in the Shipping Articles, his inclusion in the Crew List dated August 12, 1959, signed under oath by the Captain, was considered strong evidence. The testimony of the Employment Agent of the Department of Labor, who checked crew members against the Shipping Articles, indicated that Virgilio might not have been on board at the time of the check but before sailing. The Court gave more weight to the Coasting Manifest, signed under oath by the captain, as the captain is the best person to know his crew. The Court also noted that the company's Assistant Manager admitted the captain needed two apprentice-mates and Virgilio became the second. The Court found the company's attempt to substitute Rodolfo Armoreda as an apprentice-mate unconvincing, as Armoreda was listed as a Quartermaster and his designation as apprentice-mate in the August 12, 1959 Shipping Articles appeared to be a manipulation to suit the defense. On the issue of prescription: The Court reiterated that failure to comply with Section 24 of the Workmen's Compensation Act (notice and claim filing within three months) is non-jurisdictional. Such failure is not a bar if the employer had knowledge of the injury or death, or did not suffer by the delay. In this case, the company had knowledge of the accident, and there was no showing of prejudice due to the delay. Furthermore, the company's failure to controvert the claim within ten days after knowledge of the accident, as required by Section 45, resulted in a statutory renunciation of its right to controvert the claim, thereby waiving the defense of prescription. The company also failed to file the required report under Section 37, further strengthening the waiver of defenses.
Main Doctrine
The Workmen's Compensation Commission's findings of fact are final and conclusive unless tainted by grave abuse of discretion or unsupported by substantial evidence. Failure to file a claim within the prescribed period is non-jurisdictional and may be excused if the employer had knowledge of the injury or death and did not suffer by the delay, or failed to controvert the claim within the statutory period.