Telephone Engineering & Service Company, Inc. v. Workmen's Compensation Commission
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondent Leonila S. Gatus, for herself and her minor children, filed a claim for compensation against petitioner Telephone Engineering & Service Company, Inc. (TESCO) for the death of her husband, Pacifico L. Gatus, who allegedly died of liver cirrhosis. TESCO is a domestic corporation engaged in manufacturing telephone equipment, with Jose Luis Santiago as its Executive Vice-President and General Manager. UMACOR, a sister company under the same management, employed Pacifico L. Gatus as Purchasing Agent. Gatus was detailed with TESCO from May 16, 1965, to August 1, 1965. He contracted an illness on January 13, 1967, and died on July 14, 1967. Procedural History: The Acting Referee of the Workmen's Compensation Section awarded death benefits and burial expenses to the heirs of Gatus against TESCO. This award was based on an "Employer's Report of Accident or Sickness" submitted by UMACOR (indicated as employer), signed by Jose Luis Santiago, which did not controvert the claim and admitted that the deceased contracted illness in his regular occupation. TESCO, through Jose Luis Santiago, later informed the Acting Referee of its non-conformity to the award, contending the illness was not aggravated by work. TESCO requested extensions to file a Motion for Reconsideration, which were denied. TESCO filed a Motion for Reconsideration and/or Petition to Set Aside Award, alleging honest mistake or excusable negligence in the Employer's Report and that the illness was not occupational. The motion was denied, and an order of execution was issued. TESCO filed an "Urgent Motion to Compel Referee to Elevate the Records to the Workmen's Compensation Commission for Review." Meanwhile, TESCO's properties were levied upon. TESCO then filed a petition for Certiorari with Preliminary Injunction with the Supreme Court, seeking to annul the award and enjoin the sheriff. The Petition: TESCO filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court, asserting that the Workmen's Compensation Commission lacked jurisdiction due to the absence of an employer-employee relationship between TESCO and the deceased, and that it could not be estopped from questioning jurisdiction. TESCO also argued that the Court had jurisdiction to nullify the award.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent Workmen's Compensation Commission has jurisdiction to render the award against petitioner, considering the alleged absence of an employer-employee relationship, and whether petitioner is estopped from questioning the jurisdiction of the commission. Whether the petition for certiorari was prematurely filed.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed for being prematurely filed and for raising issues for the first time on appeal. Dispositive Portion: WHEREFORE, this Petition is hereby dismissed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of jurisdiction and estoppel: The existence of an employer-employee relationship is the jurisdictional foundation for recovery under the Workmen's Compensation Law. However, the lack of such a relationship is a matter of defense that must be raised in the proceedings below. The determination of this relationship is a finding of fact, conclusive and binding, and not subject to review by the Supreme Court. In this case, TESCO denied the employer-employee relationship for the first time in its petition before the Supreme Court. In its previous submissions, including its letter to the Acting Referee, requests for extension, and Motion for Reconsideration, TESCO represented itself as the employer. TESCO admitted that TESCO and UMACOR are sister companies operating under one single management and housed in the same building. While the corporate veil is generally respected, it may be pierced when used as a shield to confuse legitimate issues. TESCO's denial at this stage is considered an afterthought, a device to defeat the law and evade its obligations. This constitutes a change of theory on appeal, which is not allowed. Issues not raised before the Workmen's Compensation Commission cannot be raised for the first time on appeal, nor can a factual question be raised for the first time on appeal to the Supreme Court. On the issue of premature filing of certiorari: A petition for certiorari must be preceded by the exhaustion of all available remedies in the trial court. Certiorari cannot be resorted to when the remedy of appeal is present. TESCO did not pursue the remedies available under the Rules of the Workmen's Compensation Commission, such as an appeal from the award of the Referee to the Commission, or a petition for reconsideration of the Commission's resolution, or an appeal to the Supreme Court from an unfavorable decision. As these remedies were not utilized, the certiorari was prematurely filed. The case does not fall within the exceptions to the rule requiring exhaustion of remedies, such as where public welfare or the broader interests of justice require it, or where the orders complained of were completely null and void.
Main Doctrine
A party is estopped from questioning the jurisdiction of the Workmen's Compensation Commission based on the lack of employer-employee relationship when such relationship was admitted or not controverted in the proceedings below, and the denial is raised for the first time on appeal. Furthermore, a petition for certiorari is prematurely filed if available remedies in the lower court have not been exhausted.