Back to Index
1967 / Apr

G.R. No. L-22650 - APRIL 1967 - PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE CASE NUMBERCASE TITLE G.R. No. L-22650April 28, 1967 Republic vs. Workmen's Compensation Commission, et al. A.C. No. 561April 27, 1967 In re: Atty. Isidro P. Vinzon G.R. No. L-26558April 27, 1967 Amado O. Ibañez, et al. vs. Commission on Elections, et al. G.R. No. L-25467April 27, 1967 Lucas V. Cauton vs. Commission on Elections, et al. G.R. No. L-24327April 27, 1967 Province of Misamis Occidental vs. National Waterworks and Sewerage Authority G.R. No. L-24037April 27, 1967 Alberto de Joya, et al. vs. Gregorio T. Lantin, et al. G.R. No. L-23932April 27, 1967 Abelardo Bueno vs. Francisco G. Cordoba, Jr. G.R. No. L-23766April 27, 1967 Republic vs. Jose C. Tayengco, et al. G.R. No. L-23734April 27, 1967 People of the Philippines vs. Teodoro Sabio G.R. No. L-23676April 27, 1967 Tan Guan vs. Court of Tax Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-23377April 27, 1967 Carlos Khan, et al. vs. Trinidad R. de Asuncion, et al. G.R. No. L-22819April 27, 1967 Procter & Gamble Philippine Manufacturing Corporation vs. Commissioner of Customs G.R. No. L-22688April 27, 1967 United Insurance Company, Inc. vs. Royal Interocean Lines, et al. G.R. No. L-22625April 27, 1967 Fireman's Fund Insurance Co. vs. Compañia General de Tabacos de Filipinas, et al. G.R. No. L-22515April 27, 1967 Extensive Enterprises Corp. vs. Commissioner of Customs G.R. No. L-22409April 27, 1967 Rizal Surety and Insurance Co., Inc. vs. Manila Railroad Company, et al. G.R. No. L-22065April 27, 1967 Francisco Ortiz vs. Commission on Elections, et al. G.R. No. L-21724April 27, 1967 National Development Company vs. Workmen's Compensation Commission, et al. G.R. No. L-21705April 27, 1967 National Waterworks and Sewerage Authority vs. Alfredo Catolico, et al. G.R. No. L-21550April 27, 1967 Alfredo Diaz vs. Luis Molina, et al. G.R. No. L-21118April 27, 1967 Leon Climaco vs. Carlos Siy Uy, et al. G.R. No. L-21113April 27, 1967 Miguel Ocampo vs. Hermogenes Caluag, et al. G.R. No. L-20997April 27, 1967 In re: Ong Huan Tin - Teresita Tan Ong Huan Tin vs. Republic of the Philippines G.R. No. L-20886April 27, 1967 National Marketing Corporation vs. Associated Finance Company, Inc., et al. G.R. No. L-20797April 27, 1967 People of the Philippines vs. Felipe Cruz, Jr., et al. G.R. No. L-20701April 27, 1967 Maria L. Vda. de Misa, et al. vs. National Marketing Corporation G.R. No. L-20623April 27, 1967 In re: Law Tai Law Tai vs. Republic of the Philippines G.R. No. L-20408April 27, 1967 Narciso Solancho vs. Josefa Ramos, et al. G.R. No. L-20338April 27, 1967 Banagan Lumiguis, et al. vs. People of the Philippines G.R. No. L-20195April 27, 1967 Heirs of Julian Molina, et al. vs. Honoria Vda. de Bacud, et al. G.R. No. L-20083April 27, 1967 Crisostomo Bonilla, et al. vs. Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources, et al. G.R. No. L-19570April 27, 1967 Jose V. Hilario, Jr. vs. City of Manila G.R. No. L-19475April 27, 1967 In re: Jimmy Chua Yanho Jimmy Chua Yanho vs. Republic of the Philippines G.R. No. L-19425April 27, 1967 Demosthenes Mediante, et al. vs. Montano Ortiz G.R. No. L-18911April 27, 1967 Republic of the Philippines vs. Cleofe Ramos, et al. Cleofe Ramos, et al. vs. Felipe Asuncion, et al. G.R. No. L-18762April 27, 1967 People of the Philippines vs. Mariano Ayoso, et al. G.R. No. L-17845April 27, 1967 Intestate Estate of Victor Sevilla Simeon Sadaya vs. Francisco Sevilla G.R. No. L-23855April 24, 1967 In re: Wong Chui Wong Chui vs. Republic of the Philippines G.R. No. L-23611April 24, 1967 Guagua Electric Light Plant Company, Inc. vs. Collector of Internal Revenue, et al. G.R. No. L-23390April 24, 1967 Mindanao Portland Cement Corp. vs. McDonough Construction Co. G.R. No. L-23387April 24, 1967 In re: Lim Sih Beng Lim Sih Beng vs. Republic of the Philippines G.R. No. L-23102April 24, 1967 Cecilio Mendoza vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-22591April 24, 1967 In re: Ang Chun Ang Chun vs. Republic of the Philippines G.R. No. L-22500April 24, 1967 New Zealand Insurance Co., Ltd. vs. Manila Port Service, et al. G.R. No. L-22310April 24, 1967 In re: Tan Chua Tan Chua vs. Republic of the Philippines G.R. No. L-20246-48April 24, 1967 Jorge Vytiaco vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-20215April 24, 1967 Dionisio Perez vs. Central Azucarera Don Pedro G.R. No. L-19606April 24, 1967 Buenaventura Tan vs. Macario Peralta, et al. G.R. No. L-17599April 24, 1967 People of the Philippines vs. Nicolas Cunanan, et al. G.R. No. L-16204 and L-16256April 24, 1967 Ernesto A. Papa, et al. vs. Severo J. Santiago G.R. No. L-24235-36April 18, 1967 Sta. Cecilia Sawmills, Inc. vs. Court of Industrial Relations, et al. G.R. No. L-19726April 13, 1967 Domingo Imperial vs. Venancio P. Ziga, et al. G.R. No. L-18127April 5, 1967 In re: Gertrudes Josefina del Prado Corazon Adolfo Calderon vs. Republic of the Philippines The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc. Republic vs. Workmen's Compensation Commission, et al. In re: Atty. Isidro P. Vinzon Amado O. Ibañez, et al. vs. Commission on Elections, et al. Lucas V. Cauton vs. Commission on Elections, et al. Province of Misamis Occidental vs. National Waterworks and Sewerage Authority Alberto de Joya, et al. vs. Gregorio T. Lantin, et al. Abelardo Bueno vs. Francisco G. Cordoba, Jr. Republic vs. Jose C. Tayengco, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Teodoro Sabio Tan Guan vs. Court of Tax Appeals, et al. Carlos Khan, et al. vs. Trinidad R. de Asuncion, et al. Procter & Gamble Philippine Manufacturing Corporation vs. Commissioner of Customs United Insurance Company, Inc. vs. Royal Interocean Lines, et al. Fireman's Fund Insurance Co. vs. Compañia General de Tabacos de Filipinas, et al. Extensive Enterprises Corp. vs. Commissioner of Customs Rizal Surety and Insurance Co., Inc. vs. Manila Railroad Company, et al. Francisco Ortiz vs. Commission on Elections, et al. National Development Company vs. Workmen's Compensation Commission, et al. National Waterworks and Sewerage Authority vs. Alfredo Catolico, et al. Alfredo Diaz vs. Luis Molina, et al. Leon Climaco vs. Carlos Siy Uy, et al. Miguel Ocampo vs. Hermogenes Caluag, et al. In re: Ong Huan Tin - Teresita Tan Ong Huan Tin vs. Republic of the Philippines National Marketing Corporation vs. Associated Finance Company, Inc., et al. People of the Philippines vs. Felipe Cruz, Jr., et al. Maria L. Vda. de Misa, et al. vs. National Marketing Corporation In re: Law Tai Law Tai vs. Republic of the Philippines Narciso Solancho vs. Josefa Ramos, et al. Banagan Lumiguis, et al. vs. People of the Philippines Heirs of Julian Molina, et al. vs. Honoria Vda. de Bacud, et al. Crisostomo Bonilla, et al. vs. Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources, et al. Jose V. Hilario, Jr. vs. City of Manila In re: Jimmy Chua Yanho Jimmy Chua Yanho vs. Republic of the Philippines Demosthenes Mediante, et al. vs. Montano Ortiz Republic of the Philippines vs. Cleofe Ramos, et al. Cleofe Ramos, et al. vs. Felipe Asuncion, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Mariano Ayoso, et al. Intestate Estate of Victor Sevilla Simeon Sadaya vs. Francisco Sevilla In re: Wong Chui Wong Chui vs. Republic of the Philippines Guagua Electric Light Plant Company, Inc. vs. Collector of Internal Revenue, et al. Mindanao Portland Cement Corp. vs. McDonough Construction Co. In re: Lim Sih Beng Lim Sih Beng vs. Republic of the Philippines Cecilio Mendoza vs. Court of Appeals, et al. In re: Ang Chun Ang Chun vs. Republic of the Philippines New Zealand Insurance Co., Ltd. vs. Manila Port Service, et al. In re: Tan Chua Tan Chua vs. Republic of the Philippines Jorge Vytiaco vs. Court of Appeals, et al. Dionisio Perez vs. Central Azucarera Don Pedro Buenaventura Tan vs. Macario Peralta, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Nicolas Cunanan, et al. Ernesto A. Papa, et al. vs. Severo J. Santiago Sta. Cecilia Sawmills, Inc. vs. Court of Industrial Relations, et al. Domingo Imperial vs. Venancio P. Ziga, et al. In re: Gertrudes Josefina del Prado Corazon Adolfo Calderon vs. Republic of the Philippines The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc.

Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-22650             April 28, 1967

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES (Philippine Air Force),petitioner,
vs.
THE WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION COMMISSION and NAZARIO BAUTISTA,respondents.

Office of the Solicitor General for petitioner.
Domingo Vito for respondent Nazario Bautista.
Pagano C. Villavieja and Adelaida Martinez for respondent Workmen's Compensation Commission.

REYES, J.B.L.,J.:

Appeal from a decision of the Workmen's Compensation Commission.

On 15 January 1959, the Philippine Air Force, represented by its Base Installation Engineer, Major Francisco C. Millena, contracted with Carlos Pineda for the sum of P2,000.00, for the latter to "furnish labor and equipment and construct complete (except electrical)" the former's "Men's and Ladies Toilet, Base Theatre, PAF, Nichols Air Base, Pasay City" per scope of works specified in the agreement, Exhibit "I". The agreement also provided that the work should be completed within sixty days, exclusive of Sundays and holidays; extension of delays on account of inclement weather or unforeseen circumstances; liquidated damages in the sum of P10 for each day of delay; the manner of payment and a 10% retention thereof until after the lapse of 60 days from completion of the work.

Carlos Pineda recruited the respondent, Nazario Bautista, as one of his laborers. Bautista had been working as a mason at an average weekly wage of P36.00 since 1958 in several Air Force projects.

On 24 February 1959, immediately after alighting from a jeepney at the corner of Sales and Gozar Streets, inside the base, Nazario Bautista was bumped from behind by a baby tractor owned by the Philippine Air Force and driven by one of its prisoners, causing Bautista features in his lower extremities. He was given first-aid treatment at the military dispensary, then brought to the National Orthopedic Hospital. His injuries were evaluated by the attending physician at 63% permanent partial disability of the left leg and 26% of the right leg.

The Philippine Air Force conducted two benefit shows and turned over the proceeds, in the sum of P900 through certain Captain Valdemor, to the injured worker, as a gesture of sympathy, but, for which, Bautista signed, on 5 March 1959, a notarized deed releasing the Philippine Air Force and all persons and entities from all claims and demands resulting from the accident. (Exhibit "A").1äwphï1.ñët

Notwithstanding the sum received and the quitclaim him Nazario Bautista filed a claim for compensation with the Department of Labor. After hearing, the regional office hearing officer, Regino Veridiano II, rendered a decision for the claimant. Said decision was affirmed with some modification by the Workmen's Compensation Commission, through Commissioner Cesario Perez and, on a motion for reconsideration, said commissioners's decision was affirmeden banc.

Still dissatisfied, the petitioner filed the present petition for review, arguing, in the main, that it had no employer-employee relationship with Bautista, and pointing to independent contractor Carlos Pineda as the claimant's employer.

We agree with the Commission that the petitioner is the employer of Bautista, pursuant to Section 39(a) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, which provides:

"Employer," includes every person or association of persons, incorporated or not, public or private, and the legal representative of the deceased employer. It includes the owner or lessee of a factory or establishment or place of work or any other person who is virtually the owner or manager of the business carried on in the establishment or place of work but who, for the reason that there is an independent contractor in the same, or for any other reason, is not the direct employer of laborers employed there.

The Philippine Air Force was organized, trained and equipped primarily for prompt and sustained combat operations in the air. (Sec. 12[a], Executive Order No. 389, 23 Dec. 1950, 46 O.G. 5905). To effectively carry out this function, it has to provide the facilities, like baths, toilets, etc. to keep its personnel under proper and healthful conditions. While the construction of these facilities is not its function or "business," the existence of these structures is necessarily tied up with the exercise of its broad primary function. Not only this, the conduct of claimant Bautista and contractor Pineda, along with everybody else while on-base, was subject to military restrictions or control because the whole base is under the charge of the petitioner's base commander, Col. Juan V. Guevarra, (t.s.n., 28 Sept. 1962, p. 6). Therefore, even if it is not the direct employer of claimant Bautista, the petitioner, as virtual owner or manager of the construction job where he was working at the time of the accident, is still his statutory employer, and liable for the compensation.

The next issue tendered is which party has the right to controvert the laborer's claim, the Philippine Air Force or the Solicitor General. This is a question between said parties inter se and its resolution does not affect the rights of the claimant. At any rate, the question is irrelevant in the present case, even in an incidental manner because neither of the said parties complied with the requirements for a valid controversion — the Philippine Air Force, which knew of the accident on the day of its occurrence on 24 February 1959, controverted the claim only on 11 August 1959, much beyond the period prescribed in Section 24 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, while the Solicitor General failed to file an employer's report, as required by section 45 of the Act. It may well be pointed out also that any report by the latter would be essentially hearsay, without actual knowledge of the facts.

In the decision under review, the Commission did not deduct the P900 voluntarily given to Bautista from the amount of P4,000 awarded to him. The petitioner argues that the P900 should be deemed as a voluntary payment under Section 20 of the Act and, as such, is deductible from the sum to be paid as compensation.

The Philippine Air Force never agreed to its liability for the injury of Bautista, because it had believedbona fidethat it was not his employer; nevertheless, for humanitarian reasons, and without the solicitation by Bautista, it raised funds through benefit shows, to help him. In tendering the money (P900), however, the Philippine Air Force had its reservations, which were embodied in the deed of release. Bautista accepted the money and signed the deed. As it developed, the Air Force has been found legally, even though not actually, the claimant's employer. Now, the claimant, backtracking from the quitclaim deed that he signed, still wants to keep the money also, aside from the compensation award.

We find no reason for his doing so. Since he relies on his strictly legal right, he is only entitled to the corresponding legal compensation and no more. It is morally certain that the petitioner would not have paid the P900 independently of the legal compensation, had it realized that it would be liable therefor; hence, it would be unjust if the hand of equity should not reach out to relieve the Philippine Air Force from abuse of its generosity. We hold, therefore, that the sum of P900 should be deducted from the award.

For the foregoing reasons, the decision under review is hereby affirmed, with the modification that the P900 previously paid should be deducted from the compensation award. No costs. So ordered.

Concepcion, C.J., Dizon, Regala, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P., Zaldivar and Sanchez, JJ., concur.
Castro, J., took no part.