A.D. SANTOS, INC., DOING BUSINESS UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE OF “CITY CAB”, PETITIONER, VS. ZOSIMO DABOCOL, RESPONDENT.

Santos versus Dabocol

The Case

This is a petition for review brought by A.D. Santos, Incorporated, doing business under the name and style of City Cab, against Zosimo Dabocol, a taxicab driver in its service who was stabbed by unidentified passengers while at work. The petitioner challenges the compensation award granted to the respondent by the Workmen's Compensation Commission, insisting that it was denied its day in court and its constitutional right to confront and cross-examine the respondent's witnesses. The case matters because it fixes the standard of due process in workmen's compensation proceedings: an administrative body not bound by technical rules of procedure satisfies due process so long as the party was given a reasonable opportunity to be heard, and a party who sits on its defense when given that chance cannot later cry denial of due process.

Procedural History

Dabocol filed a claim in Regional Office Number Four of the Department of Labor, which awarded him compensation in the sum of 2,207 pesos and 53 centavos. A.D. Santos, Incorporated moved to set aside the award, and the Regional Administrator denied the motion. The company appealed to the Workmen's Compensation Commission, which affirmed the award on September 13, 1961, with slight modifications: 2,814 pesos and 17 centavos as compensation, provision for necessary medical and hospital services, 211 pesos and 6 centavos as attorney's fees, and 34 pesos as costs. The company moved for reconsideration before the Commission en banc, and upon denial of that motion it filed the present petition for review with the Supreme Court.

Facts

On March 22, 1960, Zosimo Dabocol was driving a taxicab owned and operated by A.D. Santos, Incorporated, under the name City Cab. His passengers, who were never identified, stabbed him. He was hospitalized for the injuries he sustained and thereafter filed a claim for compensation with Regional Office Number Four of the Department of Labor.

The Regional Office called the parties to conferences. On September 13, 1960, neither the company's representative nor its counsel appeared; only the claimant did. The case was reset for September 25, 1960, and on that date only a representative of the company's counsel appeared and asked for postponement. A final conference was set for October 5, 1960, and there counsel for the company presented a release signed by the claimant and the insurance company showing payment of 800 pesos, and even requested computation of the benefits due the claimant. Throughout these conferences, counsel never pressed the stand that the claimant was not an employee of the company.

After the award was issued, the company moved to set it aside, claiming denial of the opportunity to confront and cross-examine the respondent's witnesses and to present evidence against the existence of an employer-employee relationship. The Regional Administrator denied the motion, and the Commission affirmed the award with modifications. Hence the petition for review.

Issues

• Whether or not the petitioner was denied due process and its right to confront and cross-examine the respondent's witnesses and to present evidence in support of its defense of no employer-employee relationship.
• Whether or not the Workmen's Compensation Commission may proceed without being bound by technical or formal rules of procedure.

Applicable Provisions

Section 5 of Rule 21 of the Rules of the Workmen's Compensation Commission provides:

Each party in interest shall have the right to appear at any hearing in person or by counsel, present such testimony or evidence as may be pertinent and material to the controversy, cross-examine the witnesses against him and rebut contrary evidence.

This is the very right the petitioner claims was violated, and the Court measures the proceedings below against it.

Section 3 of Rule 22 of the same Rules provides:

No evidence shall be taken into account where the adverse party was not given an opportunity to object thereto on grounds referring to admissibility.

This provision governs the evidence the petitioner says it never had the chance to contest.

Section 2 of Rule 7 of the same Rules, as discussed in the decision, provides that the Commission is not bound by technical or formal rules of procedure.

The Workmen's Compensation Commission is not bound by technical or formal rules of procedure.

This is the procedural flexibility the Court invokes to uphold the proceedings.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the petitioner was afforded a reasonable opportunity to present evidence in its own behalf and to prove its claim that the respondent was not its employee. The Regional Administrator's order recited that the parties were called to conference three times, that the company appeared by counsel on the last two occasions, that counsel presented the release signed by the claimant, and that counsel even asked for computation of the benefits due the claimant, yet never reiterated the stand that the claimant was not an employee. On the face of it, the Court said, the claim of no employer-employee relationship is frivolous, and the steps taken to have the award reviewed were merely for purposes of delay. The Court stressed that what is important is that the petitioner appeared by counsel in the conferences called by the Regional Office and did not press its defense or present evidence to disprove the claim.

On the second issue, the Court held that the Commission is not bound by technical or formal rules of procedure, a principle applied in a number of prior cases, precisely to expedite the disposition of compensation cases without sacrificing due process. The petitioner's reliance on the rules on hearing and admissibility of evidence therefore did not avail it, because it had been given, and had failed to use, the opportunity those rules protect.

Doctrine

Due process in workmen's compensation proceedings does not demand the strict application of technical or formal rules of procedure; it demands only a reasonable opportunity to be heard. A party who appears by counsel at the conferences called by the Regional Office, presents documents, and requests computation of benefits, yet never presses its defense or offers evidence against the claim, cannot later claim denial of the right to confront and cross-examine witnesses or to present evidence. The right to a hearing under Section 5 of Rule 21 and the rule on admissibility of evidence under Section 3 of Rule 22 are satisfied when the party was given the opportunity to exercise them; the opportunity, not its actual use, is the measure of due process. The Commission's freedom from technical rules under Section 2 of Rule 7 exists to expedite compensation cases without sacrificing due process.

Disposition

The Court affirmed the decision appealed from in its entirety, with double costs against the petitioner.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing: due process in compensation proceedings means a reasonable opportunity to be heard, and a party who had that opportunity but sat on its defense cannot claim it was denied its day in court. Examiners like to use this case on the non-binding character of technical rules before the Workmen's Compensation Commission and on the requisites of administrative due process.