LINO P. BERNARDO, PETITIONER, VS. EUFEMIA PASCUAL, ET AL., AND WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, RESPONDENTS.

This is a petition to review on certiorari a decision of the Workmen’s
Compensation Commission, awarding compensation to the widow and children of the
deceased Pedro Pascual who met death as a result of an accident while felling a
tree in petitioner’s lumber concession.

The record shows that on March 9, 1955, the deceased Pedro Pascual was,
together with Rogelio Bacane and Martin Quinto, in the woods at Corona, San
Miguel, Bulacan. Bacane and Quinto, both loggers admittedly in the employ of
herein petitioner, were cutting timber, while fifty meters away from them the
deceased was felling a tree which he had started hewing three days before. When
Bacane and Quinto heard the sound of the falling tree—and following the practice
among loggers—they shouted to Pascual to find out if he was alright. As the
latter did not answer, they rushed to where he was and there found him prostrate
on the ground with blood trickling from his mouth. Shortly thereafter, he died
from a fractured skull and his companions took his body home in petitioner’s
truck.

On March 31, 1955, the widow of the deceased on behalf of herself and their
children filed a claim for compensation with the Workmen’s Compensation
Commission. Originally filed against the Bernardo Sawmill, the claim was on
February 6, 1956 amended to include herein petitioner Lino P. Bernardo, the
timber concessionaire and owner and operator of the sawmill, as party
respondent. In his answer, the latter denied that he was a timber concessionaire
before October 13, 1955, or that he had an employer-employee relationship with
the deceased. He also objected to the claim on the ground of prescription. The
referee assigned to hear the case having denied the claim, the claimants
petitioned for review. On August 27, 1957, the reviewing commissioner reversed
the referee’s decision and ordered Lino P. Bernardo to pay claimants P3,120.00
as compensation, to reimburse them P200.00 for burial expenses and to pay to the
Workmen’s Compensation Fund P32.00 as fees. Reconsideration of this award having
been denied, Lino P. Bernardo brought the present petition for certiorari.

Petitioner first charges that the respondent Commission abused its discretion
in reversing the decision of the referee and finding that the deceased was his
employee. Petitioner, however has failed to substantiate the charge. On the
other hand, Rogelio Bacane and Martin Quinto, whose employment with the
petitioner was never denied and who were present and were working together with
the deceased at the time the latter met his death, testified at the hearing of
the case that the said deceased was their co-laborer in the lumber concession of
petitioner Lino P. Bernardo. Indeed, the respondent Commission, expressly found
that their testimonies “clearly point to the existence of an employer-employee
relation between the respondent (herein petitioner) and the deceased.” It also
appears that the deceased, Bacane and Quinto used to receive their wages from
Emilio Bautista, petitioner’s “katiwala”. As a matter of fact, the widow of the
deceased received from said Bautista the wages corresponding to services last
rendered by her husband. Petitioner claims that Bautista was a forest guard of
the Government and was not his employee. This claim, however, loses its force
when we consider the fact that forest guards hired by lumber concessionaires,
though appointed by the Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources (under
Forestry Order No. 11), are still deemed employees of the concessionaires.
(See Martha Lumber Mill vs. Lagradante, et al., 99 Phil., 434;
52 Off. Gaz. [9] 4230.)

In disclaiming employer-employee relationship with the deceased, petitioner
has made the rather reckless accusation that the said deceased was a “lumber
smuggler” who had been stealing timber from the concession area. No explanation,
however, was given why the deceased at the time of his death was felling a tree
in broad daylight and in the presence of petitioner’s two loggers. In this
connection, we might add that the finding of the respondent Commission that the
deceased was petitioner’s employee at the time of his death is a finding of fact
and there being no sufficient showing that the same is unsupported by
substantial evidence, the same should be deemed final and conclusive upon this
Court. (Madrigal Shipping Co. vs. Del Rosario, et al., G. R. No.
L-13130, October 31, 1959; NLU vs. Sta. Ana, 101 Phil., 297; 54 Off.
Gaz. [6] 1817; see also PAL vs. PAL Employees Association, G.
R. No. L-8197, October 31, 1958; Donato vs. Phil. Marine Officers
Association, G. R. No. L-12506, May 18, 1958; 15c and Up Employees’ Association
vs. Dept. and Bazaar Free Workers’ Union, G. R. No. L-9168, October 18,
1956; NLU vs. Dinglasan, 98 Phil., 649; 52 Off. Gaz. (4) 1933; Batangas
Transportation Co. vs. Rivera and WCC, supra, p.175.)

Petitioner also argues that the claim was made out of time and therefore
already barred because it was filed only on February 6, 1956. It will be
recalled that claimants filed their original claim on March 31, 1955 against the
Bernardo Sawmill, and on February 6, 1956, amended it to include petitioner Lino
P. Bernardo as party respondent, it appearing that he was the owner and operator
of the sawmill. It will thus be seen that in amending the claim, claimants
merely specified the real party in interest in accordance with the rule that
every action must be prosecuted in the name of such party in interest (Section
2, Rule 3, Rules of Court). Since the amendment did not state a new cause of
action but merely made more determinate the real party respondent, it evidently
relates back to the date of the original complaint or claim, which was
admittedly filed within the 3-month period from the death of the employee as
fixed by tsection 24, of the Workmen’s Compensation Act.

With respect to petitioner’s claim that he became a lumber concessionaire
only on October 13, 1955, suffice it to say that prior to that date, he was a
partner to several persons owning the concession in San Miguel, Bulacan, and
subsequent thereto, he acquired the interest of his partners and became the sole
concessionaire. Under those circumstances he became liable to the creditors of
the partnership. (Art. 1840, new Civil Code.)

Wherefore, the decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission sought to be
reviewed is affirmed, with costs.

Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Reyes, J. B.
L., Barrera, and Paredes, JJ., concur.

Decision affirmed.