Gallemit v. Republic
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Antonio Gallemit was employed by the respondent Republic of the Philippines (Board of Liquidators) from June 30, 1955, holding various positions, including Accountant I. During his employment, he contracted pulmonary tuberculosis, which led him to take frequent sick leaves. His health deteriorated, forcing him to retire on September 15, 1972, at the age of 51. His physician diagnosed his condition as moderately advanced PTB. Procedural History: On March 12, 1974, petitioner filed a claim for compensation benefits with the Workmen's Compensation Section, Regional Office No. 4. The hearing officer rendered a decision on October 14, 1975, ordering the respondent to pay petitioner P6,000.00 for disability benefits and P61.00 as decisional fees. The Office of the Solicitor General initially recommended payment. However, on December 10, 1975, the Solicitor General filed a Petition for Relief from Judgment, arguing that the Regional Office lacked jurisdiction because it was not furnished a copy of the Notice of Sickness and Claim for Compensation. On February 19, 1976, the respondent Commission set aside the Regional Office's decision and dismissed the claim, citing the failure to transmit the notice to the Board of Liquidators and the Office of the Solicitor General. The Petition: Petitioner sought review of the Commission's decision, arguing that the Commission committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing his claim due to the alleged lack of jurisdiction stemming from the Regional Office's failure to transmit the necessary notices.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent Commission committed a grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the petitioner's claim for alleged lack of jurisdiction due to the failure of the Regional Office to transmit a copy of the Notice of Sickness and Claim for Compensation to the respondent Board of Liquidators and to furnish the Solicitor General a copy thereof. Whether the notice provided to the employer was sufficient under Section 27 of the Workmen's Compensation Act.
Ruling
The judgment of the respondent Commission is reversed and set aside. A new one is rendered ordering the respondent Republic (Board of Liquidators) to pay the petitioner P6,000.00 as disability compensation benefits, to reimburse medical and hospital expenses supported by receipts, to pay petitioner's lawyer P600.00 as attorney's fees, and to pay P61.00 as administrative fees.
Ratio Decidendi
On the sufficiency of notice to the employer: The Court held that Section 27 of the Workmen's Compensation Act provides for sufficient notice even if there is a failure or delay in giving notice to the employer, provided it is shown that the employer, his agent, or representative had knowledge of the illness. In this case, the respondent had knowledge of the petitioner's illness, as evidenced by his frequent applications for sick leaves, which the head of the office acted upon. Therefore, there was sufficient compliance with the notice requirements under Section 27 of the Act. On the failure to transmit notice to the Solicitor General and the employer: The Court clarified that while Section 1, Rule 8 of the Rules of the Workmen's Compensation Commission requires the transmission of a copy of the claim to the employer and a circular mandates transmission to the Office of the Solicitor General for claims against the Republic, the failure to comply with this procedural requirement does not necessarily render the decision of the Regional Office invalid. Such failure, at most, would subject the head of the unit or section to administrative action. To hold otherwise would prejudice the laborer, contrary to the objectives of Act 3428, as amended. The Court cited the case of Republic of the Philippines (Department of Justice vs. WCC & Cleofe R. Azana, G.R. No. 29019, May 18, 1972) and Wifredo Bael, etc. et al. vs. Workmen's Compensation Commission, (Republic of the Philippines) G.R. No. L-42255, January 31, 1977, emphasizing that disregard by an officer of provisions governing transmittal of claims against the government should not prejudice the claimant worker.
Main Doctrine
The failure of a Regional Office of the Workmen's Compensation Commission to transmit a copy of the Notice of Sickness and Claim for Compensation to the employer or to furnish a copy to the Office of the Solicitor General does not necessarily render the decision of the Regional Office null and void, as such procedural lapses, at most, subject the erring official to administrative action and should not prejudice the claimant worker, consistent with the objectives of the Workmen's Compensation Act.