Prisco Ibasan v. Republic of the Philippines (Bureau of Public Schools) and Workmen's Compensation Commission and/or The Secretary of Labor, Department of Labor
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Prisco A. Ibasan, a classroom teacher for 42 years, experienced nervousness, back pains, dizziness, and chest pains as early as 1964. He was treated and his illness, cardiovascular accident thrombosis, was certified by doctors as resulting from or aggravated by his employment. Due to his ailment, he retired optionally on August 31, 1969. On February 8, 1973, he filed a claim for disability compensation benefits. Procedural History: The Acting Referee of the Workmen's Compensation Commission (WCC) awarded petitioner P4,056.00 in disability compensation, P202.80 for attorney's fees, and P41.00 for administrative fees. The respondent Bureau of Public Schools, through the Office of the Solicitor General, allegedly filed a motion for reconsideration. Petitioner's counsel, Atty. Felizardo Moreno, claimed he never received a copy of this motion. The WCC reversed the Acting Referee's award in a decision dated December 18, 1975. Petitioner's counsel only received a copy of this decision on July 5, 1978, after repeated follow-ups. The Petition: Petitioner sought a reversal of the WCC decision, arguing that the Commission erred in entertaining the motion for reconsideration without proper notice to his counsel and that the Acting Referee's decision had already become final and executory.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent Commission committed a reversible error when it entertained the motion for reconsideration filed by the Office of the Solicitor General without proper notice to petitioner's counsel. Whether the decision of the acting referee had already become final and executory, and beyond the power of the respondent Commission to disturb. Whether the petition for review on certiorari was filed on time.
Ruling
The Supreme Court set aside the decision of the respondent Workmen's Compensation Commission and reinstated the Acting Referee's award, with a modification increasing the attorney's fees to 10% of the petitioner's disability benefits.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of the motion for reconsideration and notice: The Court held that the respondent Commission committed an error tantamount to a lack of notice, violating procedural due process, when it sent the notice of the motion for reconsideration to petitioner's counsel at the wrong address ("May Building, Espana, Manila") instead of his correct address ("2040 Cayetano Arellano St., Sta. Mesa Manila"). The records showed no proof of service, indicating the counsel never received the motion. The Court emphasized that service of a copy of the motion on the opposing lawyer and indicating the time and place of hearing are mandatory requirements. Failure to comply with these rules, as laid down in Estipona vs. Navarro and Cledera vs. Sarmiento, renders the motion for reconsideration invalid and prevents the tolling of the period for appeal. Therefore, the motion for reconsideration should not have been given due course. On the issue of the decision becoming final and executory: Because the motion for reconsideration was improperly entertained, the Acting Referee's decision should have become final and executory. The Court further noted that even if the motion for reconsideration were valid, the subsequent proceedings before the WCC were void due to the failure to effect a proper substitution of counsel. Atty. Juan G. Milo's appearance was accepted without the written consent of the original counsel, Atty. Felizardo Moreno, or proof of service of notice of such motion upon him, which is a mandatory requirement under Section 26 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court. Without proper substitution, Atty. Moreno remained the counsel of record, and all notices should have been served upon him. Consequently, the WCC lost its jurisdiction to review and reverse the Acting Referee's decision. On the timeliness of the petition: The Court found that the petition was filed within the reglementary period. The alleged notice of the WCC decision to Atty. Juan G. Milo was ineffective because there was no valid substitution of counsel. Petitioner's counsel of record, Atty. Felizardo Moreno, only received a copy of the WCC decision on July 5, 1978, after diligent efforts. The notice of appeal was filed on July 10, 1978, and the motion for extension to file the petition for certiorari was filed on July 14, 1978, with the petition itself being filed on August 2, 1978. This timeline demonstrated that the petition was filed within the prescribed period.
Main Doctrine
A motion for reconsideration filed without proof of service on the adverse party, or with service to the wrong address, is a violation of procedural due process and renders subsequent proceedings void. The failure to effect proper substitution of counsel also invalidates further actions taken by the Commission.