BENITO ROBLES, PETITIONER, VS. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION AND REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES (BUREAU OF PUBLIC SCHOOLS), RESPONDENTS.

This is a petition for review^[1]
of the decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission reversing the decision
of the Acting Referee of the Regional Office No. 5, San
Pablo City (RO-5,
WCC No. C-2685) which awarded to petitioner an accrued disability compensation
benefits of P5,375.57 and a weekly compensation of P48.32 starting August 1, 1975 until the total sum
reaches P6,000.00, the maximum compensation allowed by law.

Petitioner Benito Robles was employed by the res­pondent Republic
of the Philippines
(Bureau of Public schools) as a public school teacher with a salary of
P4,188.00 per annum.  He has been in the
continuous service of the respondent for 33 years until the age of 60 when on July 12, 1972, he applied for
optional retirement due to illness.  On
or about March 4, 1975, or about 3 years from the date of his disability, he
filed his claim for disability compensation benefits before Regional Office No.
5, Department of Labor, San Pablo City.  In support of his claim, he filed a
Physician’s Report of Sickness or Accident (WCC Form No. 4) accom­plished by
his physician, Dr. Vicente Aguila of San Pablo City
certifying to the fact that petitioner was sick of Rheumatic Arthritis; that he
came to know of petitioner’s illness on January 5, 1972 on initial consultation
and treatment.  In his report, Dr. Aguila also certified that:

“10. Was the illness or injury contracted …

(b)    
the result of the nature of such
employment? Yes

(c)    
or aggravated by the employment? Yes

11. Give your findings to support items 9 and 10:

Patient as a school
teacher is required by his job to stand continuously for long periods thereby
resulting in excessive strain of the
joints.

In the column “General Remark”,
he stated that the patient is still under treatment for this condition.^[2]

A hearing was conducted on the merits of the case before the
Hearing Officer of the Regional Office of San Pablo City and on July 30, 1975,
the Hearing Officer, Emilio de Villa rendered a decision granting the claimant
an accrued disability compensation benefits of P5,375.57 and a weekly compensation
of P48.32, starting August 1, 1975 until the total sum reaches P6,000.00, the
maximum compensation allowed by law.

On August 14, 1975
respondent received its copy of the decision of the Hearing Officer.  On August
22, 1975, respondent employer filed with the Hearing Officer of
Regional Office No. 5, San Pablo City,
a motion for extension of time to file a motion for reconsideration requesting
for ten days extension from August 28,
1975 within which to file his motion for reconsideration.^[3]

A close examination of the records failed to show any motion for
reconsideration filed by the respondent employer within the time requested for
filing said motion.  As a matter of fact,
a certification was made on December
22, 1975 by Atty. Amado A. Enriquez, Acting
Chief of Unit, Regional Office No. 5, San Pablo
City, that no motion for
reconsideration was filed.^[4]

Surprisingly, however, on December 29, 1975, or exactly 4-1/2
months after receiving a copy of the decision of the Hearing Officer,
respondent employer filed with the respondent Commission a Petition to Elevate
Records for Relief from Judgment.  In
said petition, however, respondent employer admits that the decision in
question was not acted upon immediately or within the period required for a
motion for reconsideration and reasons out that:

“The claim having been filed after retirement, and though having
gone on sick leaves of absence, claimant failed to mention the illnesses now
being complained of and which res­pondent came to know for the first time by
the filing of the instant claim, there is prejudice caused respondent which is
sufficient reason for the dismissal of the present claim on the ground of
prescription (Cipriano M. Soriano
vs. Pangasinan School of Arts and Trade, RO1-WCC Case
No. 6148, November 22, 1973);

Arthritis without complications is not a basis for permanent
disability because pains in the joints are part of the aging process.”

On February 6, 1976,
respondent Workmen’s Compensation Commission en banc rendered a
decision reversing the decision of the Hearing Officer of Regional Office No.
5, San Pablo City
and absolved the respondent employer of its liability.  Hence this petition for review.

We reverse the respondent Workmen’s Compensation Commission.  It has no more jurisdiction over the case
after the decision of the Hearing Officer of Regional Office No. 5, San
Pablo City became
final and executory. 
In Ramos vs. Republic, L-41942, February
27, 1976, this Court has already ruled that:

“Respondent commission’s decision must be set aside for being
null and void for lack of jurisdiction and authority on its part to set aside
an award that was already final and executory and had
even been duly endorsed for payment by the Government’s counsel.

Since no appeal to the commission (by motion for reconsideration)
had been filed within the fifteen-day reglementary
period, the referee’s Award became final and executory
upon the expiration of said deadline.

x   x   x   x   x   x

When respondent belatedly filed on January 23, 1975 its Motion to Set Aside Award on the
ground of timely controversion, respondent Commission
no longer had juris­diction to act on the same. 
The award had long become final and executory,
and the referee, in denying the motion, no longer had authority to elevate the
record for the commission’s review, as provided in cases of timely appeals, but
merely the ministerial duty to issue motu propio or on motion of the claimant the writ of execution
for enforcement of the award.”^[5]

There can be no dispute in the instant
case that the decision of the Hearing Officer of Regional Office No. 5, San
Pablo City has
long become final and executory almost 4 months when
the respondent employer filed its Petition to Elevate Records for Relief with
the respondent Commission.

It is, however, claimed that under abnormal and extraordinary
circumstances, more particularly, the bulk of work assigned to the trial
attorney in the Office of the Solicitor General personally handling the case as
member of the Compensation Task Force of the Office of the Solicitor General
requiring her presence in the hearing of compensation cases at Regional Office
No. 5, Department of Labor, to beat the deadline set by the President for the
early disposition thereof, in addition to the interviews conducted by her
pursuant to Letter of Instructions No. 270, on the naturalization of deserving
aliens by Decree, it was humanly impossible for her, with the limited and
meager resources and personnel of the Office of the Solicitor General to
challenge the jurisdiction of the Acting Referee of Regional Office No. 5, San
Pablo City and show that the decision he rendered was contrary to the facts and
the law, within normal reglementary periods.  But the records show that on August 22, 1975, respondent employer
was able to file a motion for extension from August 28, 1975 within which to file a motion for
reconsideration of said decision.  Why
did not respondent employer file any motion for reconsi­deration within the
extended period?  Instead of filing a
motion for reconsideration, why did its counsel file a petition to elevate the
records for relief with the respondent Commission after the period of extension
within which to file a motion for reconsideration have long expired for four
and one-half (4-1/2) months after receipt of the decision?  In one case,^[6]
this Court ruled that mere pressure of work cannot be considered as a valid
excuse for not filing a motion for reconsideration of the decision of the
Acting Labor Referee.

WHEREFORE, the judgment of the respondent Commission is
hereby reversed and set aside and that of the Acting Referee is hereby
reinstated with the modification that respondent Republic of the Philippines
(Bureau of Public Schools) is ordered to pay petitioner Benito Robles a
disability compensation benefits of P6,000.00; medical expenses properly
receipted for; his lawyer an attorney’s fee in the amount of P600.00 and to pay
the corresponding administrative fee.

SO ORDERED.

Teehankee, (Chairman), Makasiar, Muñoz Palma, Fernandez,
and Guerrero, JJ., concur.

^[1]
Treated as Special Civil Action per Resolution of this court dated June 29, 1976.

^[2]
Exhibits B and B-1 attached to the records of the case.

^[3]
Annex B of the Petition.

^[4]
Annex C of the Petition.

^[5]
Chief Products Inc. vs. WCC, 55 SCRA 478.

^[6]
Ranada vs. Workmen’s Compensation Com­mission
No. L-43709, September 30, 1976,
73 SCRA 263.