G.R. No. L-33463 - MAY 1974 - PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE CASE NUMBERCASE TITLE G.R. No. L-33463May 2, 1974 Universal Corn Products, Inc. vs. Workmen's Compensation Commission, et al. A.M. No. 457-MJMay 3, 1974 Jose Lacsamana vs. Meljohn De La Peña G.R. No. L-24294May 3, 1974 Donald Baer vs. Tito V. Tizon, et al. G.R. No. L-28363May 15, 1974 Nieves Palma Gil Villarica, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-32054May 15, 1974 Teresita Llaneta vs. Corazon Juliano Agrava G.R. No. L-27184May 21, 1974 People of the Philippines vs. Ruperto Aquino A.M. No. 655-MJMay 23, 1974 Cesar G. Otero vs. Juan G. Esguerra G.R. No. L-25172May 24, 1974 Luis Ma. Araneta vs. Antonio R. De Joya G.R. No. L-38020May 24, 1974 Daniel Cucio vs. Court of Appeals, et al A.M. No. 60-MJMay 27, 1974 Evangeline Valle vs. Juan G. Esguerra G.R. No. L-26526May 27, 1974 Gaudencio E. Antonino vs. Brigido R. Valencia A.M. No. 518-MJMay 28, 1974 Elmer Rañeses vs. Celestino Tomines G.R. No. L-23178May 28, 1974 Eulogio Datu, et al. vs. Ladislao Pasicolan, et al G.R. No. L-27944May 28, 1974 In Re: Mindanao Motor Line, Inc. Jesus Moraza vs. Epifanio Alforque, et al. G.R. No. L-27760May 29, 1974 Crispin Abellana, et al. vs. Geronimo R. Marave, et al G.R. No. L-35785May 29, 1974 People of the Philippines vs. Domiciano Baylon G.R. No. L-37399May 29, 1974 Benito Uy, et al. vs. Melecio A. Genato, et al. A.C. No. 176-MJMay 30, 1974 Pampanga Bar Association vs. Oscar G. Lagman of San Fernando, Pampanga A.C. No. 279-JMay 30, 1974 Gregoria V. Bondoc vs. Jose De Guzman G.R. No. L-27160May 30, 1974 Jose Quan vs. Sheriff, City of Manila, et al. G.R. No. L-28899May 30, 1974 Alfredo C. Tajan vs. Vicente N. Cusi, Jr. G.R. No. L-34636May 30, 1974 Jose R. Oliveros vs. Onofre A. Villaluz, et al. Concurring and Dissenting OpinionJustice Castro & Justice Esguerra Concurring OpinionJustice Fernando & Justice Barredo G.R. No. L-35382May 30, 1974 In Re: Ong Tion San. Ong Tion San vs. Republic G.R. No. L-37083May 30, 1974 In Re: Sally Patron. Sally Patron vs. Commanding Officer, et al. G.R. No. L-38184May 30, 1974 Juan Lopez Manansala vs. Republic A.M. No. P-160May 31, 1974 Jose F. S. Bengzon, Jr. vs. Agapito Ramos A.M. No. P-211May 31, 1974 Quintin De Dios Santos vs. Alberto A. Valino G.R. No. L-22237May 31, 1974 Eufracio D. Rojas vs. People of the Philippines , et al. G.R. No. L-23399May 31, 1974 Bernardo Dizon, et al. vs. Ambrosio Magsaysay, et al. G.R. No. L-23453May 31, 1974 Martiniano P. Vivo vs. Rodolfo T. Ganzon, et al. G.R. No. L-26622May 31, 1974 Philippine Air Lines Supervisors' Association vs. Enrique Jimenez, et al G.R. No. L-27031May 31, 1974 People of the Philippines vs. Loreto S. Renegado G.R. No. L-28333May 31, 1974 Toribio P. Muncal vs. Alfin S. Vicencio, et al. G.R. No. L-29433May 31, 1974 Ernesto S. Mata, et al. vs. Andres Reyes, et al. G.R. No. L-30942May 31, 1974 Philippine National Railways vs. Court of Industrial Relations, et al. G.R. No. L-31106May 31, 1974 People of the Philippines vs. Benedicto Cortez, et al. G.R. No. L-31227May 31, 1974 People of the Philippines vs. Antonio Savellano G.R. No. L-31726May 31, 1974 People of the Philippines vs. Tomas Abalos, et al. G.R. No. L-34971May 31, 1974 Socorro G. De Castro vs. Delta Motor Sales Corp., et al. G.R. No. L-35133May 31, 1974 People of the Philippines vs. Raymundo Madera, et al. G.R. No. L-35729May 31, 1974 Heirs of Telesforo Soriano, et al. vs. Republic, et al. G.R. No. L-37446May 31, 1974 Reno Arcaya, et al. vs. Victorino C. Teleron, et al. G.R. No. L-37656May 31, 1974 Reliance Procoma, Inc., et al. vs. Phil-Asia Tobacco Corp., et al. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc. Universal Corn Products, Inc. vs. Workmen's Compensation Commission, et al. Jose Lacsamana vs. Meljohn De La Peña Donald Baer vs. Tito V. Tizon, et al. Nieves Palma Gil Villarica, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. Teresita Llaneta vs. Corazon Juliano Agrava People of the Philippines vs. Ruperto Aquino Cesar G. Otero vs. Juan G. Esguerra Luis Ma. Araneta vs. Antonio R. De Joya Daniel Cucio vs. Court of Appeals, et al Evangeline Valle vs. Juan G. Esguerra Gaudencio E. Antonino vs. Brigido R. Valencia Elmer Rañeses vs. Celestino Tomines Eulogio Datu, et al. vs. Ladislao Pasicolan, et al In Re: Mindanao Motor Line, Inc. Jesus Moraza vs. Epifanio Alforque, et al. Crispin Abellana, et al. vs. Geronimo R. Marave, et al People of the Philippines vs. Domiciano Baylon Benito Uy, et al. vs. Melecio A. Genato, et al. Pampanga Bar Association vs. Oscar G. Lagman of San Fernando, Pampanga Gregoria V. Bondoc vs. Jose De Guzman Jose Quan vs. Sheriff, City of Manila, et al. Alfredo C. Tajan vs. Vicente N. Cusi, Jr. Jose R. Oliveros vs. Onofre A. Villaluz, et al. Concurring and Dissenting OpinionJustice Castro & Justice Esguerra Concurring OpinionJustice Fernando & Justice Barredo In Re: Ong Tion San. Ong Tion San vs. Republic In Re: Sally Patron. Sally Patron vs. Commanding Officer, et al. Juan Lopez Manansala vs. Republic Jose F. S. Bengzon, Jr. vs. Agapito Ramos Quintin De Dios Santos vs. Alberto A. Valino Eufracio D. Rojas vs. People of the Philippines , et al. Bernardo Dizon, et al. vs. Ambrosio Magsaysay, et al. Martiniano P. Vivo vs. Rodolfo T. Ganzon, et al. Philippine Air Lines Supervisors' Association vs. Enrique Jimenez, et al People of the Philippines vs. Loreto S. Renegado Toribio P. Muncal vs. Alfin S. Vicencio, et al. Ernesto S. Mata, et al. vs. Andres Reyes, et al. Philippine National Railways vs. Court of Industrial Relations, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Benedicto Cortez, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Antonio Savellano People of the Philippines vs. Tomas Abalos, et al. Socorro G. De Castro vs. Delta Motor Sales Corp., et al. People of the Philippines vs. Raymundo Madera, et al. Heirs of Telesforo Soriano, et al. vs. Republic, et al. Reno Arcaya, et al. vs. Victorino C. Teleron, et al. Reliance Procoma, Inc., et al. vs. Phil-Asia Tobacco Corp., et al. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc.
Manila
FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. L-33463 May 2, 1974
UNIVERSAL CORN PRODUCTS, INC.,petitioner,
vs.
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION COMMISSION and PELAGIA CALDERON,respondents.
Marquinez, Lizaso & Associates for petitioner.
Ester S. Garcia & P.E. Villanueva for respondent WCC.
Juan R. Moreno for private respondent.
MAKALINTAL,C.J.:
This is a petition for review of the decision of the Workmen's Compensation Commission dated December 20, 1970, ordering the Universal Corn Products, Inc. to pay the claimant, Pelagia Calderon, the sum of Two Thousand Three Hundred Five and 44/100 Pesos (P2,305.44) as death compensation benefits and Two Hundred Pesos (P200.00) as reimbursement for burial expenses, to pay the claimant's counsel the sum of Two Hundred Fifty and 54/100 Pesos (P250.54) as attorney's fees, and the Workmen's Compensation Fund the sum of Thirty One Pesos (P31.00) as administrative costs; and of the resolutionen banc,dated April 12, 1971, denying the motion for consideration.
On February 7, 1966 Pelagia Calderon filed with the Workmen's Compensation Unit, Regional Office No. 4, Manila, a claim against the Universal Corn Products, Inc. for compensation benefits for the death of her son, Ricardo Ramos. She alleged,inter alia,that he was employed by the respondent as a security guard from 1957 until October 7, 1964, when he died of pulmonary tuberculosis. In its answer the respondent denied the foregoing allegation and as evidence presented a contract executed on November 1, 1962 by and between its mother corporation, the Consolidated Foods Corporation, and the International Watchman Agency, wherein the latter engaged to furnish the former with uniformed guard service to guard and protect its warehouses, materials, machineries, and buildings. Among other things the contract provided that the watchman agency would directly hire the security guards; that the watchman agency would pay the guards in accordance with the Minimum Wage Law; that the watchman agency would put up a bond for P5,000.00 to secure the faithful performance of the terms and conditions of the contract; and that the watchman agency would hold the Company free from any liability and claim under the Minimum Wage Law, Workmen's Compensation Act, Employee's Liability Act and Eight Hour Labor Law. It was the respondent's theory that by virtue of said contract it had no employer-employee relationship with the deceased Ricardo Ramos and was therefore not liable under the Workmen's Compensation Act. Finding the respondent's theory to be untenable, the Hearing Referee in his decision dated February 20, 1967 awarded compensation benefits to the claimant. The respondent moved to reconsider but the motion was turned down; hence, it elevated the case to the Workmen's Compensation Commission. After proper proceedings Associate (Medical) Commissioner Herminia Castelo-Sotto rendered a decision dated December 20, 1970, affirming that of the Hearing Referee except as to the amount of the award, which was slightly modified. Taking exception to the finding regarding the existence of an employer-employee relationship with the deceased, the respondent sought reconsideration of the decision but was turned down again. Thereupon it instituted the instant petition for review.
The petitioner assigns two errors allegedly committed by the Workmen's Compensation Commission namely: (1) in finding that the late Ricardo Ramos was its employee; and (2) in not declaring that the claim was already barred.ℒαwρhi৷
We sustain the award in favor of the private respondent. Notwithstanding the terms and conditions of the contract with the International Watchman Agency, the petitioner was the employer of the deceased Ricardo Ramos within the purview of 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.
There is no question that "the main business of the petitioner is the milling and manufacture of various corn products," while the security guards were furnished by the International Watchman Agency to guard and protect the petitioner's warehouses, materials, machineries, and buildings. Specifically, Hearing Referee made the following findings regarding the nature of work performed by the deceased Ricardo Ramos: "As such security guard, the deceased's work consisted in guarding the premises of the respondent company, conducting inspections on outgoing and incoming trucks and persons. While in the performance of his work as such security guard, he was closely under the supervision of the proper authorities of the respondent company. The security guards were not provided with arms by respondent company; they, however, were provided with patches on their uniforms bearing the emblem of the company as well as that of the security agency." Furthermore, the respondent Commission found that the petitioner "indispensably needed the services of the security guards, ..., to protect its business interest." Under the foregoing circumstances, it is evident that the work of the deceased was part of the usual business of the petitioner.1Consequently, even if the petitioner was not the direct employer of the deceased Ricardo Ramos in view of the intervention of an independent contractor, it was still the statutory employer and therefore liable for the compensation claimed.2
The petitioner's second assignment of error is likewise without merit. While it is true that the private respondent failed to file her claim within three (3) months from the death of Ricardo Ramos, the petitioner did not raise the defense of prescription before or during the trial before the Hearing Referee. Settled is the rule that said defense cannot be raised for the first time on appeal, it being presumed that it was waived upon the employer's failure to plead it before or during the trial.3
WHEREFORE,the decision of the Workmen's Compensation Commission, dated December 20, 1970 as well as the resolutionen banc,dated April 12, 1971, denying the motion for reconsideration, is hereby affirmed, with costs against the petitioner.
Castro, Teehankee, Makasiar, Esguerra and Muñoz Palma, JJ., concur.
Footnotes
In Gant vs. Jackson Brewing Company, 112 So. 2d 767, one of the cases cited by Larson, the court made the following explanation why it considered the duties of a watchman to be an integral and necessary part of the company's business, thus:
... We consider the duties in which plaintiff was engaged when he slipped and fell to be an integral and necessary part of defendant's business, trade or occupation. We do not think that it could be logically or successfully argued that the defendant in connection therewith would not require the services of employees to police its plant by watching and guarding the safety and security thereof and protecting its operations, property and good will. On the contrary, it is quite obvious that without watchmen or guards there would be the likelihood that the defendant could not conduct a successful business at all. Plaintiff's occupational duties were just as essential in defendant's operations as the duties performed by any of defendant's other employees, inclusive of those who operate the machinery utilized in manufacturing the products defendant deals in. Sight should not be lost of the fact that plaintiff was carrying on duties no different than those which had been performed by defendant's own employees prior to the 1941 contract with Pinkerton Detective Agency. Defendant at all times deemed guards and watchmen essential plant employees.