CAMOTES SHIPPING CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. JULIAN OTADOY & ZOILA GARCIANO, RESPONDENTS.

Petitioner Camotes Shipping Corporation
would have us review the decision of the Workmens
Compensation Commission of March 27, 1967 reversing an order of dismissal of
an acting referee and sustaining the claim of respondents Julian Otadoy and Zoila Garciano arising from the death of their son Felino Otadoy who was lost at sea
while in the employ of petitioner.  With
the attack on the above decision primarily centered, as noted in petitioner’s
brief, on the substantiality and sufficiency of the evidence, and considering
further that there was a failure to controvert in time, there was no justification
for the reversal sought.  We affirm.

As noted in the aforesaid decision under review, respondents, on
July 31, 1964, filed a notice and claim for compensation alleging that their
son, Felino Otadoy, while
in the employ of petitioner Camotes Shipping
Corporation, was, on the night of July 13, 1964, on board its vessel Ave Maria
II, but upon arrival the next morning in Poro, Cebu, he could not be found, having
disappeared and presumably drowned.  A
copy of such notice and claim was sent to petitioner on August 10, 1964, but it was not until two months
and five days later, on October 15, that the employee’s report was filed.  At the hearing before the acting referee at Cebu City,
respondents presented their evidence with petitioner filing a motion to dismiss
on the ground of in sufficiency
of evidence.  It was sustained by the
acting referee, but on appeal to the Workmens
Compensation Commission primarily on the issue of the substantiality of the
evidence adduced, the decision now sought to be reviewed was entered sustaining
the claim of respondents.

It is expressly stated in the decision now sought to be reviewed
that there was a conclusive showing “that Felino
Otadoy was with the respondent’s Ave Maria II when it
sailed from Poro to Cebu
on July 12, 1964.  On its return trip from Cebu City
to Poro, via Mandawe, Otadoy was still aboard the boat.  He was even requested by Teresito
Baidal, one of the boat passengers who boarded at Mandawe, Cebu,
for something to eat.  That was on the
night of July 13, 1964 when
the boat lifted anchor from Mandawe on its way to Poro.  Another
passenger, Crisostomo Fabroa,
said that Otadoy, Baidal
and he slept together on the roof of the boat on the night of said July
13.  As there was a slight drizzle, they
had to go down the deck to look for some other place to resume their
sleep.  When the boat reached Poro on the early morning of July 14, 1964, Baidal, while
still aboard the boat, tried to look for Otadoy to
ask for coffee.  However, he could not find
Otadoy so, he boarded the
rowboat that carried passengers from
the Ave Maria II to the shore.  Fabroa likewise
stated that from the time Otadoy and he separated at the roof of the boat he did not see Otadoy again.”^[1] Reference was likewise made to another
witness, Vicente Ale, who “stated that on July 14, 1964, he went to the wharf at Poro
purposely to look for Otadoy for the medicine which
his sick father had requested Otadoy to buy.  He arrived at the wharf ahead of the arrival
of the Ave Maria II.  When the Ave Maria
II docked, he looked for Otadoy from among the
passengers that were being rowed from the Ave Maria II by means of a rowboat to
the shore.  However, he failed to find Otadoy.  So he
boarded the rowboat and went aboard the Ave Maria II to continue his search for
Otadoy.  Again,
he did not see Otadoy.”^[2]

The conclusion flowing from the above is set forth in the
decision under review thus:  “These
overwhelming circum­stantial evidence on the unexplained disappearance of Otadoy while aboard Ave Maria II, plus the
inherent impossibility for him to leave the boat voluntarily while the boat was
sailing on the high sea between Mandawe and Poro, Cebu, the fact that he
could not be found dead or alive notwithstanding the diligent efforts of his
parents to locate him, the failure of the respondent to establish that he was
alive, are more than sufficient to support the inference that he fell into the
sea and was drowned and said incident was not noticed by anybody.  And, inasmuch, as, at the time of his disappearance,
Otadoy was in the course of his employment with the
respondent, his dependent parents should be entitled to the benefits provided
by the Act.”^[3]

Caltex (Phil.) Inc. v. Villanueva^[4]
comes to mind.  Thus:  “The fact that the employee was found
missing while on board the petitioner’s vessel MV ‘Caltex Mindanao’ became known
to the captain of the vessel on 10 October 1956 but it was only on 6 November 1956 when the petitioner
transmitted to the respondent Commission WCC Form No. 3 stating that the employee
was ‘lost at sea
and presumed dead as of October 10, 1956,’ and that it was controverting
the respondent’s claim.  The controversion of the claim having been made beyond the
period provided for by the law and the rules, the petitioner should have stated
under oath the reasons for his failure to do so.  Having failed to comply with this
requirement, the petitioner is deemed to have renounced its right to controvert
the respondent’s claim, the claim may be considered uncontroverted
and the regional administrator may adjudicate the respondent’s claim on the
basis of the evidence at hand.”^[5]
Earlier, in Victory Shipping Lines, Inc. v. Workmens
Compensation Commission,^[6]
we categorically affirmed that
“the rule on preponderance of
evidence [thus applied] to establish the fact of death.”^[7]
With the summary above made of the evidence offered and the careful analysis of
its implications so evident in the decision now under review, it would be
unwarranted to indulge petitioner in its plea for a reversal.

WHEREFORE, the decision of the Workmens
Compensation Commission of March 27,
1967 is affirmed.  With costs against petitioner.

Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Ruiz Castro,
Teehankee, Barredo, and Makasiar, JJ., concur.

Concepcion, C.J., and Villamor, J., did not take part.

^[1]
Decision of the Workmens Compensation Commission, pp.
2-3.

^[2]
Ibid, p. 3.

^[3]
Ibid, pp. 3-4.

^[4]
L-15658, August 21, 1961, 2 SCRA 995.

^[5] Ibid, p. 1003.

^[6] 106 Phil. 550 (1959).

^[7] Ibid, p. 553.