MALAN BROTHERS WATCHMAN AGENCY, PETITIONER, VS. MAGDALENO CONANAN AND THE WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, RESPONDENT.

Appeal by certiorari from the order of the Workmen’s Compensation
Commission-through its Chairman-dated September 18, 1961, and its
Resolution en banc of September 28, 1961, in WCC-R04-Case No. 62349 entitled Magdaleno Conanan vs. Malan Brothers Watchman Agency.

Respondent Magdaleno Conanan was a member of petitioner, Malan Brothers
Watchman Agency, a duly licensed Watchman Agency in the City of Manila
engaged in the recruitment of men for employment as special watchmen or
security guards of business establishments.

On November 6, 1959, while performing his duties as security guard in
the premises of the Manila Bay Hosiery Mills, Inc. at Bacood, Sta.
Mesa, Manila, Conanan sustained injuries on his left leg when his
service pistol accidentally went off. On January 6, 1960 he filed with
the Regional Office No. 4 of the Department of Labor a claim for
compensation against petitioner under Act No. 3428, as amended. A copy
of the same was sent to the latter on February 5,1960, together with
W.C.C. Forms Nos. 3, 4 and 5 (Employer’s Report of Accident or
Sickness, Physician’s Report of Accident of Sickness, respectively) for
it to accomplish, but they were returned unclaimed. On March 29 of the
same year, a copy of said claim and forms were again sent by registered
mail to petitioner at its new address at 202 Dr. Alejog St., La Loma,
Quezon City. Receipt thereof was acknowledged by its manager, Fabio
Malan, on April 4, 1960. It was only on October 3, 1960, however, that
petitioner submitted to the Regional Office the accomplished forms
contesting Conanan’s claim but at the same time admitting having paid
the latter the sum of P350.00 as “voluntary help”.

As petitioner was deemed to have failed to controvert the claim because
the controversion mentioned heretofore was filed long after the
expiration of the period provided for in Section 45 of Act No. 3428, as
amended, the Regional Administrator, on October 12,1960, made an award
in favor of the claimant in the amount of P3,371.46. A copy thereof was
sent by registered mail to petitioner on October 26, 1960, but
petitioner obstinately refused to claim it at the post office despite
two registry notices sent to it on November 11 and 22, 1960. On
February 1, 1961, a followup letter of the Regional Administrator dated
December 6, 1960 requiring petitioner to pay the amount of the award
was served on him by Rizal Cruz, a labor investigator of Regional
Office No. 4.

It was only on February 3, 1961 that petitioner moved for a
reconsideration of the award on the ground that it was granted without
a hearing. The Administrator denied the motion on June 2, 1961. A
second motion for reconsideration was likewise denied on June 16 of the
same year. Thereupon, petitioner appealed to the Workmen’s Compensation
Commission.

On September 18, 1961, the Commission issued an order dismissing the
appeal, and petitioner’s motion for reconsideration of said order
having been denied, the present appeal was taken.

The principal question involved in this appeal is whether the
questioned award had become final and executory when petitioner moved
for its reconsideration.

Upon the facts stated heretofore, it appears clear that the ruling of
Regional Administrator Naldo, of Regional Office No. 4, to the effect
that petitioner had failed to controvert the claim of Conanan is
correct, because the controversion was not filed or made within the
time provided by law. It appears likewise clear that petitioner’s
motion for reconsideration was filed out of time, because notice of the
award sent to petitioner must be deemed complete upon the expiration of
five (5) days from November 11, 1960 when he received the first
registry notice. As he filed his motion for reconsideration only more
than sixty (60) days thereafter, said motion could no longer be
entertained.

Petitioner’s claim that the award is void because it was rendered
without any notice of hearing having been served on him is without
merit. Conanan’s claim being non-controverted, the Regional
Administrator was authorized to decide the game upon the submission to
him of the claim and accompanying evidence-as was done in the present
case-without the necessity of holding a formal hearing. (Bachrach Motor
Co. Inc., vs. The Workmen’s Compensation Commission et al., 99 Phil., 238).

The record does not disclose that the late filing of the controversion
by petitioner was excusable, because as a matter of fact, it appears
that it had knowledge of the accident on the very date it occurred,
namely, November 6, 1959, and was served with a copy of the claim and
accompanying documents on April 4, 1960. It took petitioner six months
to controvert the same.

In view of all the foregoing, the orders appealed from are affirmed, with costs.

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