SAN MIGUEL BREWERY CARLATAN COCA-COLA PLANT BRANCH, PETITIONER, VS. GENEROSA S. VDA. DE JOVES, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.

Petition for certiorari to review the resolu­tion of the Workmen’s
Compensation Commission, en banc, dated January 28, 1965, in
B.W.C. Case No. 1792-R9, denying petitioner’s motion for reconsider­ation of
the decision in the same case awarding com­pensation benefits to the widow of
one Cresenciano Joves, a
deceased worker.

The late Cresenciano Joves had worked as loader in the San Miguel Brewery, Carlatan Coca-Cola Plant Branch, since 1947, with an
average weekly wage of P30.00.  On June 6, 1961, on his way home, and
very shortly after quitting work at the warehouse of the company at Dagupan City,
Joves was bumped and run over by a speeding car.  He was rushed to the Pangasinan Provincial
Hospital where he expired on that
same day.  The records show that the
company came to know of the mishap thru the deceased’s capataz
and supervisor who allegedly promised to the widow that the company would
render aid in the amount of P200.00 for funeral expenses.  Despite this knowledge, however, the employer
did not notify the Workmen’s Compensation Commission of the said accident, nor
did it controvert the widow’s right to death benefits under the Workmen’s
Compensation Act.

The claim for compensation was actually filed by the widow on January 31, 1962, before the
Department of Labor Regional Office No. 1 at Dagupan City.  Upon hear­ing the cause, the chief hearing
officer therein rend­ered judgment for the claimant and against the San Miguel
Brewery as employer of the deceased.

After a reconsideration of the award at the in­stance of the
company, due to a clerical error in the computation of the amount of
compensation adjudged to be awarded to the widow, the record was elevated to
the Workmen’s Compensation Commission for review.  As stated in the beginning, the Commission
also decided in favor of the claimant. 
Hence, this petition filed by the em­ployer company.

The first point raised by the petitioner is the laches incurred by the claimant when she filed her claim
for compensation only on January 31,
1962, about seven months after the vehicular accident that caused
the death of her husband on June 6,
1961.  It is con­tended that
filing of the claim for compensation within the periods specified in section 24
of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, three months in case of death, is a
condition precedent to the recovery of compensation benefits.  Our jurisprudence abound
with cases that refute this contention.

Mainly, the doctrine is that failure on the part of the employee
or claimant to comply with the require­ments of section 24 of Act 3428 is
non-jurisdictional.^[1]
Thus, it has been held that failure or delay in giving said notice is not a bar
to the proceeding in the claim for compensation, if it is shown that the
employer, his agent or representative has knowledge of the injury, sickness, or
death, or that the employer did not suffer by such delay or failure.^[2]
There is no denying here that the company had knowledge of the accident at
which Joves met his death, and there is no showing
either that said company did suffer or was prejudiced by the widow’s failure to
file her claim on time; consequently, said de­lay incurred by the widow is not
fatal to her right to recover death benefits under the Workmen’s Compensation
Act.

On the other hand, authorities are quite strict with the
requirement regarding the employer’s giving notice of
accident, injury or sickness of his employee to the Workmen’s Compensation
Commission, and its intention to controvert the right of the claimant to com­pensation.  It has been held repeatedly that failure of
said employer to comply with this requirement constitutes a renunciation of the
right to controvert a claim, unless it submits reasonable grounds therefor,^[3]
so that even if a claim for compensation is filed beyond the period prescribed
in Section 24 of Act 3428, when it is shown that the employer has not manifested
to the Commission his intention to controvert the right to compensation, the
Commission can proceed to determine and decide the claim for compensation.^[4]
The company’s failure in this case to comply with such requirement is not
disputed.  Guilty itself of delay,
petitioner cannot now avoid the widow’s claim for compensation by invoking a
similar delay on the part of the latter.^[5]

We are unable to entertain petitioner’s second ground for review,
directing our attention to an alleged case filed against the negligent party
responsible for the death of the deceased whereat said party was supposed to
have been convicted and ordered to indemnify the heirs of the deceased in the
amount of P6,000.00 which indemnification, it is
claimed, would preclude re­covery of death benefits under the Workmen’s
Compensa­tion Act.  Firstly, this issue
was never raised by the herein petitioner in any of the previous stages of the
case until presently in this appeal. 
Secondly, it in­volves a verification of the factual basis of the alle­gation,
which is beyond our province to do so.

As it appears from the foregoing, the petitioner has failed to
show justifiable cause for a reversal of the conclusions reached by the
respondent Commission.

WHEREFORE, the resolution under review is here­by
affirmed, with costs against the petitioner.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Sanchez, Castro and
Fernando, JJ., concur.

^[1] Victorias
Milling Co., Inc. vs. Villanueva, et al., G. R. No. L-10533, May 13, 1957; Century Ins. Co.,
Inc. vs. Fuentes, et al., G. R. No. L-16039, August 31, 1961; Manila Railroad Co. vs. Workmen’s Compen­sation
Commission, G. R. No. L-21002, August
10, 1967.          

^[2] Paez vs.
Workmen’s Compensation Commission, et al., G. R. No. L-18438, March 30, 1963; Pangasinan
Transportation Co., Inc. vs. Workmen’s Compensation, et al., G. R.
L-16490, June 29, 1963.

^[3]
National Development Co. vs. Rongavilla, G. R.
L-­21963, August 30, 1967; Manila Railroad Co. vs. Work­men’s
Compensation Commission, et al., G. R. L-21502, Sept. 15, 1967; Manila Railroad
Co. vs. Workmen’s Com­pensation Commission, G. R. L-21902, August 10,
1967.

^[4] National Development Co. et al. vs. WCC, et al. G. R.
L-20502, Mar.
31, 1965; MRR vs. WCC, supra.

^[5]
Manila Railroad Co. vs. Workmen’s Compensation Commission, G. R.
L-21502, Sept. 15, 1967.