Universal Corn Products, Inc. v. Workmen's Compensation Commission
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Pelagia Calderon filed a claim for death compensation benefits for her son, Ricardo Ramos, who was allegedly employed by Universal Corn Products, Inc. as a security guard from 1957 until his death on October 7, 1964, due to pulmonary tuberculosis. The company denied the employer-employee relationship, presenting a contract with an external security agency that purportedly hired and paid the guards, thereby holding the company free from liability. 2. Procedural History: The claim was initially filed with the Workmen's Compensation Unit, Regional Office No. 4, Manila. Despite the company's defense, the Hearing Referee ruled in favor of the claimant. The company's motion for reconsideration was denied, leading to an appeal to the Workmen's Compensation Commission. The Commission affirmed the Hearing Referee's decision, with a slight modification to the award amount. A subsequent motion for reconsideration by the company was again denied, prompting the instant petition for review. 3. The Petition: Universal Corn Products, Inc. petitions this Court for review, assigning two errors: (1) the Commission's finding that Ricardo Ramos was its employee, and (2) the Commission's failure to declare the claim barred. The petitioner argues that the contract with the security agency absolved it of employer liability. The petitioner also contends that the claim was filed beyond the statutory period, though this defense was not raised in the lower proceedings.
Issue(s)
Whether the petitioner was the employer of the deceased Ricardo Ramos within the purview of the Workmen's Compensation Act. Whether the claim for compensation benefits was barred by prescription.
Ruling
The decision of the Workmen's Compensation Commission, dated December 20, 1970, as well as the resolution en banc, dated April 12, 1971, denying the motion for reconsideration, is hereby affirmed, with costs against the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of employer-employee relationship: The Court affirmed the Commission's finding that the petitioner was the employer of the deceased Ricardo Ramos within the purview of Section 39(a) of the Workmen's Compensation Act. Despite the contract with the International Watchman Agency, the Court found that the deceased's work as a security guard, which involved guarding the petitioner's premises, materials, and buildings, was part of the petitioner's usual business. The deceased was under the supervision of the petitioner's authorities and his work was indispensable to protect the petitioner's business interests. Therefore, even if the petitioner was not the direct employer due to the intervention of an independent contractor, it was still the statutory employer and liable for the compensation claimed. On the issue of prescription: The Court ruled that the petitioner's second assignment of error, regarding the claim being barred by prescription, was without merit. While the private respondent failed to file the claim within three months from the death of Ricardo Ramos, the petitioner did not raise the defense of prescription before or during the trial before the Hearing Referee. The Court reiterated the settled rule that the defense of prescription cannot be raised for the first time on appeal, as it is presumed to have been waived upon the employer's failure to plead it during the trial.
Main Doctrine
An employer is liable for compensation benefits under the Workmen's Compensation Act even if the employee was hired through an independent contractor, if the work performed by the employee was part of the employer's usual business. The defense of prescription cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.