Delgado Brothers, Inc. v. Workmen's Compensation Commission
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Fernando Palero, employed by petitioner Delgado Brothers, Inc. as a "plant-in-charge" and residing within the company premises, had a weekly salary of P58.00. On July 15, 1973, a Sunday, Palero and a co-employee, Benjamin Calupitan, engaged in a drinking spree. Later, Palero escorted a drunk Calupitan home. Near Calupitan's house, they were seen quarreling by Alfredo Moral, the security guard on duty. Moral approached to pacify them, but Palero attempted to wrest Moral's gun. During the struggle, the gun discharged, hitting Palero, who subsequently died from the gunshot wounds. Procedural History: Gloria Palero, the widow, filed a Notice of Death and Claim for Compensation on August 7, 1974. Petitioner filed its Employer's Report of Accident or Sickness on May 7, 1975, controverting the claim, which was approximately nine months after the claim was filed. The Acting Referee awarded death compensation benefits, funeral expenses, attorney's fees, and administrative fees. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied. The Workmen's Compensation Commission (WCC) affirmed the Acting Referee's decision. The Petition: Petitioner sought a review of the WCC decision, raising issues on the compensability of the death and the effect of the Acting Referee's order allowing the submission of counter-affidavits despite the late filing of the notice of controversion.
Issue(s)
Whether the death of the deceased Fernando Palero is compensable under the Workmen's Compensation Act, as amended, despite being due to a gunshot wound sustained while attempting to forcibly wrest a gun from a security officer on duty, and occurring on a Sunday when he was not at work. Whether the order directing the petitioner to submit counter-affidavits, after failing to seasonably submit the required notice of controversion, had the effect of reinstating petitioner's right to controvert the claim.
Ruling
The judgment of the respondent Commission is affirmed. Costs against petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of compensability and the failure to seasonably controvert: The Court found no need to resolve the compensability issue directly because there was no valid controversion of the claim. The Employer's Report, which embodied the notice of controversion, was filed almost nine months late. Section 45 of the Workmen's Compensation Act requires the employer to file a notice of controversion either on or before the 14th day of disability or within 10 days after knowledge of the accident. Failure to file a seasonable notice of controversion constitutes a waiver by operation of law of the right to controvert on non-jurisdictional grounds. This waiver does not violate due process, as consistently held in numerous cases. The failure to controvert is considered a renunciation of the right to challenge the claim and a waiver of all non-jurisdictional defenses, rendering it legally impossible for the employer to prove anything in relation thereto. Therefore, the respondent Commission did not commit grave abuse of discretion in ruling that petitioner was barred by laches from asserting any defense and that the presumption of compensability prevailed. On the issue of reinstatement of the right to controvert: The Court held that the Acting Referee's order allowing petitioner to submit counter-affidavits did not amount to a reinstatement of its right to controvert. Section 3, Rule 8 of the Rules of the Commission requires an employer who failed to controvert to file a petition under oath, specifying the reasons for the failure and the grounds relied upon, before the Unit may reinstate the right to controvert. The records did not show that petitioner filed such a formal petition under oath; it only made an oral motion in open hearing. This oral request did not meet the legal requirements for reinstatement. The Court reiterated that mere acceptance of evidence by a hearing officer does not automatically reinstate the right to controvert, as only the Commissioner may do so under the law. Consequently, the counter-affidavits submitted by the petitioner could not be given credit as the company did not have the right to controvert.
Main Doctrine
Failure of an employer to file a seasonable notice of controversion of an employee's claim for compensation, as required by Section 45 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, as amended, constitutes a waiver by operation of law of the right to controvert on non-jurisdictional grounds, and such waiver does not violate due process. Mere acceptance of counter-affidavits by the Acting Referee does not amount to a reinstatement of the right to controvert if the procedural requirements for reinstatement are not met.