G.R. No. L-12324 - AUGUST 1958 - PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE CASE NUMBERCASE TITLE G.R. No. L-12324August 30, 1958 Tan Lim Te vs. Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, et al. G.R. No. L-12190August 30, 1958 In Re: Felicidad Esguerra Alto-Yap. Fausto E. Gan vs. Ildefonso Yap G.R. No. L-12034August 30, 1958 Heirs of Patricio Pabores vs. Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation Commission, et al. G.R. No. L-12000August 30, 1958 Benguet Consolidated Mining Company vs. Coto Labor Union, et al. G.R. No. L-11776August 30, 1958 Ramon Gonzales vs. Go Tiong and Luzon Surety Co., Inc. G.R. No. L-11336August 30, 1958 Rodolfo Ganzon vs. Union C. Kayanan G.R. No. L-10665August 30, 1958 Loreto Aguirre, et al. vs. Manuel B. Atienza, et al. G.R. No. L-10155August 30, 1958 Wong and Lee vs. Collector of Internal Revenue, et al. G.R. No. L-10122August 30, 1958 Lee E. Won vs. Wack Wack Golf and Country Club, Inc. G.R. No. L-9529August 30, 1958 People of the Phil. vs. Pedro T. Villanueva G.R. No. L-12172August 29, 1958 People of the Phil. vs. Juan F. Fajardo, et al. G.R. No. L-11862August 29, 1958 Philippine National Bank vs. Hermogenes Mallari, et al. G.R. No. L-10867August 29, 1958 Manolo L. Maddela vs. Juan P. Aquino, etc., et al. G.R. No. L-10859August 29, 1958 Flaviano Bautista vs. Auditor General, et al. G.R. No. L-10617August 29, 1958 People of the Phil. vs. Cresencio P. Vergel G.R. No. L-10525August 29, 1958 Alipio N. Casilan, et al. vs. Santiago Gancayco, et al. G.R. No. L-10445August 29, 1958 People of the Phil. vs. Victoriano Alfiler, et al. G.R. No. L-10222August 29, 1958 Cirilo Dizon vs. Isabel Banues G.R. No. L-7664August 29, 1958 Amador C. Ong vs. Metropolitan Water District G.R. No. L-12247August 26, 1958 Beatriz Ramos vda. de Bagatua, et al. vs. Pedro A. Revilla, et al. G.R. No. L-12544August 25, 1958 Charlie Brown vs. Constantino S. Suezo G.R. No. L-12084August 25, 1958 Pedro Samson, et al. vs. Nicasio Yatco, et al. G.R. No. L-11004August 25, 1958 People of the Phil. vs. Pacifico Gardon, et al. G.R. No. L-12631August 22, 1958 Rafael I. Amurao vs. Indalecio Calangi, et al. G.R. No. L-12376August 22, 1958 Joe's Radio and Electrical Supply vs. Alto Electronics Corp., et al. G.R. No. L-11063August 22, 1958 People of the Phil. vs. Santiago Briz, et al. G.R. No. L-10303August 22, 1958 Lucio Javillonar vs. Land Tenture Administration G.R. No. L-11839August 21, 1958 Manuel Masiglat vs. City Mayor of Pasay City, et al. G.R. No. L-11238August 21, 1958 St. Stephen's Association, et al. vs. Collector of Internal Revenue G.R. No. L-7047August 21, 1958 Raymond Tomassi vs. Fernando Villa-Abrille G.R. No. L-12662August 18, 1958 Chua Lao, etc., et al. vs. Cipriano A. Raymundo, et al. G.R. No. L-11945August 18, 1958 Reynaldo Gomez vs. North Camarines Lumber Company, Inc. G.R. No. L-10791August 18, 1958 Elena Sotto vda. de Maralag, et al. vs. Government Service Insurance System The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc. Tan Lim Te vs. Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, et al. In Re: Felicidad Esguerra Alto-Yap. Fausto E. Gan vs. Ildefonso Yap Heirs of Patricio Pabores vs. Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation Commission, et al. Benguet Consolidated Mining Company vs. Coto Labor Union, et al. Ramon Gonzales vs. Go Tiong and Luzon Surety Co., Inc. Rodolfo Ganzon vs. Union C. Kayanan Loreto Aguirre, et al. vs. Manuel B. Atienza, et al. Wong and Lee vs. Collector of Internal Revenue, et al. Lee E. Won vs. Wack Wack Golf and Country Club, Inc. People of the Phil. vs. Pedro T. Villanueva People of the Phil. vs. Juan F. Fajardo, et al. Philippine National Bank vs. Hermogenes Mallari, et al. Manolo L. Maddela vs. Juan P. Aquino, etc., et al. Flaviano Bautista vs. Auditor General, et al. People of the Phil. vs. Cresencio P. Vergel Alipio N. Casilan, et al. vs. Santiago Gancayco, et al. People of the Phil. vs. Victoriano Alfiler, et al. Cirilo Dizon vs. Isabel Banues Amador C. Ong vs. Metropolitan Water District Beatriz Ramos vda. de Bagatua, et al. vs. Pedro A. Revilla, et al. Charlie Brown vs. Constantino S. Suezo Pedro Samson, et al. vs. Nicasio Yatco, et al. People of the Phil. vs. Pacifico Gardon, et al. Rafael I. Amurao vs. Indalecio Calangi, et al. Joe's Radio and Electrical Supply vs. Alto Electronics Corp., et al. People of the Phil. vs. Santiago Briz, et al. Lucio Javillonar vs. Land Tenture Administration Manuel Masiglat vs. City Mayor of Pasay City, et al. St. Stephen's Association, et al. vs. Collector of Internal Revenue Raymond Tomassi vs. Fernando Villa-Abrille Chua Lao, etc., et al. vs. Cipriano A. Raymundo, et al. Reynaldo Gomez vs. North Camarines Lumber Company, Inc. Elena Sotto vda. de Maralag, et al. vs. Government Service Insurance System The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc.

Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-12324             August 30, 1958

TAN LIM TE,petitioner,
vs.
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION COMMISSIONER, SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION, PROVINCIAL SHERIFF OF PAMPANGA, RUFINA REYES DE MENDIOLA, for herself and in behalf of her minor children, FERMIN, RAMON, JUAN, NESTOR, NITA and ROMMIE, all surnamed MENDIOLA,respondents.

Jesus Paredes and R. C. Balderrama for petitioner.
Rufina Reyes Vda. de Mendiola for herself and in behalf of her minor children, all surnamed Mendiola.
Office of the Solicitor General Ambrosia Padilla, Solicitor Troadio T. Quiazon, Jr. and Enrique M. Reyes for the other respondents.

FELIX,J.:

Juan Mendiola was employed by Francisco Tan Lim Te as a truck driver in the latter's rice mill located at Angeles, Pampanga. OnJanuary 28, 1952, while Mendiola was sitting atop several sacks of palay loaded in a jeep-trailer belonging to his employer which, at the time, was being driven by another Chinaman, to prevent said sacks from falling, the vehicle happened to pass on a roadhole causing Mendiola to be forcibly thrown to the ground. A radiography of the victim taken on the day of the accident revealed that he sustained the following injuries: "Dislocation of the patella,¹left; simple fracture pubis, left and right bones with slight overlapping on the right pubis bone".

Mendiola received medical treatment from a physician in Angeles, Pampanga, and, allegedly against the advice of the latter, he was brought by his employer to a Chinese masseur in Manila. A month thereafter he reported back for work, although he was said to have recurring fever ever since. OnJanuary 25, 1953, Mendiola succumbed to his ailment, diagnosed as "portal cirrhosis,"²at the North General Hospital. The physician in the aforesaid hospital who last attended him declared that "the first stage of Portal Cirrhosis might have been present at the time of the injury and weakened resistance might have aggravated the condition". This statement appears to be substantiated by the fact that as of 1951, the deceased was already under treatment for "biliousness, chronic hepatitis³and mild icterus".⁴

OnMarch 3, 1953, the widow and her 7 minor children filed a claim for compensation with the Workmen's Compensation Commission against Francisco Tan Lim Te for the death of Juan Mendiola (Case No. 25537). But notwithstanding the fact that the Commission had transmitted a copy of the claim together with W.C.C. Form No. 3, Employer's Report of Accident and Sickness, to the employer for accomplishment onSeptember 18, 1953, the latter submitted the aforesaid report containing his opposition to the claim of the heirs of the deceased only onFebruary 10, 1954. On September 7, 1955, the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, finding that the injury sustained by the deceased which caused his death arose out of or in the course of his employment, awarded the widow and the 7 minors, all dependent upon said employee, the sum of P2,880.80 as compensation, plus the amount of P200.00 as burial expenses. The employer thus moved for a reconsideration of the award on the ground that he was not given opportunity to present evidence although he opposed the claim; that his failure to controvert said claim at an earlier date was due to his unfamiliarity with the law; and that the claim was likewise filed out of time and they could, therefore, be considered to be inpari delicto. This motion was denied by the Commissioner in his order of February 23, 1956. The employer again filed a petition, this time for review and/or new hearing contending that if he would be allowed to present evidence, he would establish that the Commission had no jurisdiction over the case; that the accident was through the fault, negligence and drunkenness of the deceased; and that the death of Mendiola was not caused by accident but due to his chronic alcoholism, which petition was denied on April 18, 1956, for lack of merit.

On March 29, 1957, the Secretary of the Workmen's Compensation Commission, invoking the provisions of Article III, paragraph 12 of the Reorganization Plan No. 20-A, issued a writ of execution ordering the Provincial Sheriff of Pampanga to satisfy, out of the properties of Francisco Tan Lim Te, the award in favor of claimants amounting to P2,802.85, plus the sum of P29 which will go to the Workmen's Compensation Fund, and the cost of execution thereof. Pursuant thereto, the Provincial Sheriff placed under distraint certain properties of Tan Lim Te and set the date for the sale thereof at public auction. The said employer, questioning its jurisdiction to issue an order of execution, filed with the Commission a motion to cancel said order, but as the public sale would take place on May 11, 1957, he filed the instant petition for certiorari seeking to nullify the proceeding and the award in W.C. Case No. 25537 without waiting for the ruling on the aforementioned motion. And as prayed, this Court issued a writ of preliminary injunction restraining the Provincial Sheriff from enforcing the writ of execution and proceeding with the public sale upon petitioner's filing a bond for P200.

The record of the case supports the Commissioner's finding that Tan Lim Te filed the Employer's Report of accident involving the deceased Juan Mendiola only onFebruary 10, 1954, despite the fact that he was informed thereof onJanuary 28, 1952, and was furnished copy of the claim for compensation onSeptember 18, 1953. In this connection, the Workmen's Compensation Law (Act No. 3428, as amended) provides:

It is clear from the foregoing that in the event of an accident which cause death or injury to an employee, the employer's right to contest or controvert any claim for compensation arises immediately upon the occurrence of such accident. But for an employer to invoke such right, the law requires him to submit a report of the accident within 14 days from the date of disability or within 10 days after he acquires knowledge thereof; otherwise, he shall be considered to have waived the right to question the validity or reasonableness of the injured employer's claim for compensation. An exception to this rule may be obtained where the employer's failure to comply with such requirement is justified or explained to the satisfaction of the Commissioner, who, in the exercise of his discretion, may allow the former to controvert or resist the claim. And as such power involves the use of discretion, this Court is prone not to disturb the same unless the exercise thereof is gravely abused. In the case at bar, we find that the Commissioner committed no grave abuse of discretion in awarding compensation to the claimants and in denying petitioner's motions to reconsider the same; hence, there exist no reason why said award should be altered or disturbed.

Petitioner, likewise, contests the power of the Workmen's Compensation Commission to issue a writ of execution directing the Provincial Sheriff to execute the disputed award, asserting that such an award may only be enforced by filing in any court of record of the place where the accident occurred a certified copy of the decision from which no petition for review or appeal has been taken within the time allowed therefor; whereupon, the Court shall render a decree or judgment in accordance therewith and notify the parties accordingly (Sec. 51, Act No. 3428, as amended by Rep. Act No. 772). Respondents, however, contend that Rule 11 of the Rules of the Workmen's Compensation Commission promulgated pursuant to paragraph 12, Article III of the Reorganization Plan No. 20-A, as implemented by Executive Order No. 218, authorizes the Commission to issue a writ of execution. While it is true that Rule 11 of the aforesaid Rules provides that:

yet said rules, which were published in the April 15, 1957 issue of the Official Gazette,became effective only on April 30, 1957, or 15 days after their publication (Vol. 53, No. 7, Off. Gaz. p. 2112). Considering that the writ of execution was issued by the Commission on March 29, 1957, or a month and two days before the effectivity of said rules, there is no doubt that the execution of the award should be governed by the provisions of Rule 51 of the Workmen's Compensation Act. Nevertheless, this fact cannot in any way affect the validity of the award, for it having become final, it becomes merely the court's (or commission's) ministerial duty to issue a writ of execution, and certainly, an erroneous or voided writ cannot work to divest said final order or judgment of its character of finality. Moreover, an erroneous or voided writ of execution will not preclude the issuance of another writ to carry out and satisfy a judgment or award, for the prevailing party is entitled to such writ of execution shall not be prejudiced by the mistake or error of the court or body issuing the same.

WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari now under consideration is dismissed and the writ of preliminary injunction issued herein is hereby lifted. However, the Workmen's Compensation Commission shall issue another writ of execution with which to substitute the one issued before the Rules of that Commission became effective. With costs against petitioner. It is so ordered.

Paras, C. J., Bengzon, Montemayor, Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L., and Endencia, JJ.,concur.

Footnotes