Seven-Up Bottling Company v. Tero
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Agapito Tero, cashier, warehouseman, and acting officer-in-charge of petitioner Seven-Up Bottling Company of the Philippines in Cagayan de Oro City, was at the Inday Harborside Bar. An altercation ensued when Tero intervened in a dispute between Severino Streegan, an employee of a competitor, and a waitress regarding a 7-Up product. Streegan fatally shot Tero during the altercation. Procedural History: The deceased's widow filed a claim for death compensation. The hearing officer ordered petitioner to pay compensation. The Workmen's Compensation Commission (WCC) affirmed the decision, with modifications to the award amounts. The WCC en banc affirmed the decision and increased the award. The Petition: Petitioner appealed by certiorari, arguing that Tero's death was not service-connected and did not arise out of and in the course of employment, and that its right to controvert the claim was impliedly reinstated.
Issue(s)
Whether the death of Agapito Tero was service-connected and arose out of and in the course of employment. Whether petitioner's right to controvert the claim was impliedly reinstated.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Workmen's Compensation Commission, holding that the death of Agapito Tero was service-connected and arose out of and in the course of employment, and that petitioner's right to controvert the claim was not reinstated due to its failure to file the required controversion within the prescribed period.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the death was service-connected and arose out of and in the course of employment: The Court found that Agapito Tero, as the highest-ranking employee in charge of petitioner's business in Cagayan de Oro, had duties that often required him to work on Sundays and holidays. The incident occurred while Tero was at a bar to look for a private contractor whose trucks were used for hauling petitioner's products, and the altercation arose in defense of petitioner's products against a competing brand. This established a sufficient nexus between Tero's employment and the fatal incident, thus deeming the death service-connected and arising out of and in the course of employment. On the issue of whether the right to controvert was reinstated: The Court held that petitioner failed to file the employer's report of accident within the statutory period, despite having knowledge of the incident on the same day. This failure, according to Section 45 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, resulted in the claim being considered uncontroverted. The Court reiterated that the mere acceptance of evidence by the hearing officer does not automatically reinstate the right to controvert; a petition under oath specifying the reasons for the failure to controvert is required, which was not filed by the petitioner. Therefore, by operation of law, petitioner renounced its right to challenge the claim, barring all non-jurisdictional defenses.
Main Doctrine
The failure of an employer to file a written controversion of a workmen's compensation claim within the prescribed period, despite knowledge of the incident, results in the claim being considered uncontroverted, thereby barring all non-jurisdictional defenses.