GUARDIAN SECURITY AND INVESTIGATION AGENCY, PETITIONER, VS. THE WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, AND MERLA G. APRUEBO, FOR HERSELF AND IN BEHALF OF HER MINOR CHILDREN ROBERTO …

On August 28, 1965
respondent Merla Apruebo,
for herself and in behalf of her two children Roberto and Rogelio, both
surnamed Apruebo, filed a claim for compensation
arising from the death of her husband, Rodolfo Apruebo,
who up to the time of his death on July
8, 1965 was an
employee of petitioner Guardian Security and Investigation Agency.  The notice of claim,
however, was directed to the Boie Incorporated and a
certain Capt. Pedro Martinez.  After
hearings held in connection therewith, the hearing officer made an award as
follows:

“IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING,
we find no alternative but to hold, as we hereby hold, that the death of
RODOLFO APRUEBO, is compensable under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, as amended, and under 8(b) and 10
thereof, death benefits should be extended to the widow, MERLA G. APRU­EBO and
her two (2) minor children ROBERTO and ROGELIO, both surnamed APRUEBO, who were
dependent upon the deceased for support, as follows:

1.  Compensation equivalent
to 50% of the decedent’s average weekly wage for 208 weeks 50% of his average
weekly wage which was P35.08 (P152.00 mo. times 12 months divided by 52 weeks)
equals P17.54 and for 208 weeks, the claimants should receive the total
compensation of THREE THOU­SAND
SIX HUNDRED FORTY-EIGHT and 32/100 PESOS
(P3,648.32).

2.  Reimbursement of burial
expenses in the sum of TWO HUNDRED PESOS (P200.00).

The check or money order covering payment of compensation due the
claimants should be drawn in
their favor, and remitted to this Office.

AWARD, therefore, is hereby entered in favor of the claimants of
the aforesaid compensation benefits, and the respondent is directed to pay:

1.  To the claimant, thru
this Office, the total sum of THREE THOUSAND EIGHT HUN­DRED FORTY-EIGHT and
32/100 PESOS (P3,848.32),
as compensation and burial expenses; and burial expenses; and

2.  To
this Office, the sum of THIRTY-SEVEN PESOS (P37.00), as fee pursuant to the
provisions of Section 55 of the Act Bill No. W-647-65 is attached.”

Thereafter petitioner filed a petition praying the Workmen’s
Compensation Commission to review the award, claiming that the same was null and void on the
ground that the claim (notice and claim for compensation in death cases) having
been directed to and made against Botica Boie and Capt. Pedro Martinez, petitioner did not become a
party to the proceeding.  The Commission,
speaking
through its Chairman, N. Baens del
Rosario, finding no reversible error in the
award, affirmed it, besides assessing against petitioner the sum of
P5.00 as costs.  On the main question
raised by petitioner, the Commission said:

“This Commission after a thorough study of the case concurs
with the Hearing Officer in its
conclusion that the respondent’s stand lacks merit for the simple reason that
while it may be true that the claim was directed against Capt. Pedro Martinez, the Employer’s Report filed with the
Regional Office bore the Guardian Security and Investigation Agency, as the
employer of the deceased who met with an accident on July 8, 1965 while toying with his
gun.  Thus, by voluntary submitting to
the ju­risdiction of the Regional Office, respondent cannot deny that it is not
a party to the case.”

Within the reglementary period
petitioner moved for a reconsideration of the decision just mentioned, praying
that its right to controvert the claim be reinstated.  This
was also denied by the Commission in its resolution of October 25,
1966 now
subject of the instant petition for review.

We find the petition for
review to be without merit.

As found by the Wage Compensation Commission, petitioner filed
the Employer’s Report of Accident (P. F. Form No. 3) on September 8, 1965 clearly admitting therein that
Rodolfo Apruebo was its security guard when he met a
fatal accident on July 8, 1965, and
that it had knowledge of said accident on the very date it happened.  Under the provisions of Section 45 of Act
3428, if the employer wishes to controvert the right to compensation of any of
his employees, he should either on or before the 14th day of disability or
within 10 days after he had knowledge of the accident or death file a notice
with the Commission, on a form prescribed by the latter, that compensation is
not being paid, giving the name of the claimant, the name of the employer, the
date of the accident, and the reason why compensation is not being paid.  The law further provides that the employer’s
failure to comply with this requirement
shall constitute a waiver of his right to controvert the claim, unless he
submits reasonable grounds for his failure to make the necessary report on time, on the basis of which the Commissioner may reinstate
his right to controvert the claim.

In the present case it is not denied that petitioner filed the
employer’s report required by the above legal provision only on September 8,
1965, obviously long after the expiration of the period for
the purpose.  This,
according to law, amounted to a waiver of its right to controvert the claim.

Anent petitioner’s contention that it did not become a party to
the proceeding that led to the award in question, We deem it sufficient to
quote here what the hearing officer who made such award said in his order of February 8, 1966:

“x x
x             x x x                 x x x

Having admitted to be the employer of the
deceased and having filed the Employer’s Report of Accident or Sickness, said
res­pondent agency has for all legal intents and purposes voluntarily submitted
to the jurisdiction of this Office and can not now be heard to complain that
jurisdiction over its person has not been acquired as to make the Award against it binding and
effectual.”

Moreover if after all, petitioner was deemed to have waived its
right to controvert the claim, the Hearing Officer had authority to consider
the same ex-parte.

The
only question remaining to be resolved is whether or not the Wage
Compensation Commission erred in denying the petition for the reinstatement of
petitioner’s right to controvert the claim filed by the private respondents.  In this connection it is to be observed that
the waiver of the employer’s right to controvert may be set aside by the Commission only if the
former “submits reasonable grounds for (its) failure to make the necessary
report” strictly in accordance with the provisions of Section 45 of Act 3428.  In the present case the Wage Compensation
Commission, in the exercise of
its discretion under the law, refused to reinstate petitioner’s right to
controvert the claim, and the record does not disclose anything clearly showing
that, in so doing, it had gravely abused its discretion.

WHEREFORE, the petition for review under consideration
is hereby dismissed, with costs.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Makalintal, Zaldivar, Castro,
Fernando, Teehankee, Barredo,
and Villamor, JJ., concur.