NORTHWEST ORIENT AIRLINES, INC., PETITIONER, VS. LOUISE MATEU AND THE WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, RESPONDENTS.

To sustain the plea of petitioner Northwest Orient Airlines, Inc.
in this petition for the review of a decision of respondent Workmen’s
Compensation Commission would be to reverse without any justification the
controlling doctrine on the adverse consequences of non-controversion
on the part of the employer, one so continuously and uninterruptedly adhered
to, and for good and sufficient reason. 
We are not disposed to take that stand. 
We sustain the award of the Workmen’s
Compensation Commission in favor of respondent Louise Mateu.

In the decision of respondent Workmen’s Compensation Commission
of August 5, 1965, now sought to be reviewed, the facts were narrated
thus:  “Claimant Louise Mateu had filed on January 27, 1965 with the Regional
Office No. IV, through the Bureau of Workmen’s Compensation, her Notice of
Inquiry or Sickness and Claim for Compensation dated January 22, 1965,
Physician’s Report of Sickness or Accident dated October 26, 1964, signed by
Dr. Clarence Ekvall, Manila Sanitarium and Hospital,
and a certificate of the same physician dated November 13, 1964 stating among
other things, that she is an employee of the Northwest Orient Airlines, Inc.,
as time worker, with the regular occupation as Passenger Sales Agent, earning a
daily wage of P26.31 with 5 working days a week.  Sometime in 1948, while stationed in Tokyo,
Japan, she allegedly met a car accident in the company car while going from the
airport to their staff house, and since then her right shoulder and arm have
been bothering her, causing her temporary total disability for labor.  On June 29, 1957, claimant again sustained an
injury when the aircraft she was riding on suddenly lost altitude between
Okinawa and Tokyo.  Last September 8,
1964, she was again disabled for work until November 1, 1964, caused by pain in
her right shoulder, the same shoulder which had been injured several years
back, which has been diagnosed as: 
‘Biceps tendonities, right; Fibrositis, right shoulder girdle masculature.'”^[1]

A regional officer of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission
furnished petitioner Northwest Orient Airlines, Inc. her notice of injury or
sickness and claim for compensation. 
There was a reservation on the part of the American Foreign Insurance
Associations on behalf of petitioner of its right to controversion
pending investigation of the circumstance of the accident.  It was shown, however, that not only was such
reservation made out of time but nothing else was done on the matter.  Under the circumstances, it was the view of
respondent Workmen’s Compensation Commission that as there was an admission
that the injury was work-connected and there was a failure to controvert, the
award made by the referee, which moreover was
supported by substantial evidence, should not be set aside.  Hence this petition for
review.

The first assigned error can easily be disposed of.  It would dispute a finding of fact of the
respondent Workmen’s Compensation Commission as to the controversion
having been made.  Such an effort cannot
be attended with success.  Only recently,
in the case of Victorias Milling Co., Inc. v.
Workmen’s Compensation Commission,^[2]
we had occasion to reiterate that findings of facts based on substantial
evidence of record are not for us to disregard. 
They are binding and conclusive.

The next two errors assigned would raise a due process question
in view of the alleged failure to accord petitioner its day in court.  The above-cited Victorias
Milling Co. decision reiterates that in the absence of controversion,
the due process argument is not likely to prevail.  It quoted Filipino Pipe & Foundry Corp.
v. Workmen’s Compensation Commission,^[3] where this Court, speaking through the
present Chief Justice, stated:  “It
is not denied that petitioner’s answer to Hiwatig’s
claim had not been filed within ten (10) days from notice of Hiwatig’s claim. 
Pursuant to section 45 of Act No. 3428, petitioner is deemed, therefore,
to have renounced its right to controvert said claim.  In other words, the same was deemed admitted
by petitioner, which, accordingly, had no more right to demand a day in
court.” Petitioner Northwest Orient Airlines, Inc. cannot, therefore, take
any comfort in the above assigned errors.

Nor is the fourth assigned error objecting to the late filing of
the claim any more persuasive.  Again to
quote from the Victorias Milling Co. decision:  “Failure to controvert amounts to a
waiver or renunciation or forfeiture or loss of right of the defense that the
claim for compensation was not filed within the statutory period.  What is undeniable is that ‘the failure to
controvert is fatal to its defense of the claim having been filed out of
time.'”

An excerpt from Central Azucarera
de Don Pedro v. Workmen’s Compensation Commission^[4]
is likewise relevant.  Thus:  “With regard to the claim that the delay
in filing the claim for compensation should be considered fatal to its success,
appellant corporation seems to have taken no notice of the fact that the
original ruling to that effect has suffered a gradual evolution, and that the
trend of the more recent decisions of this. 
Court has been to consider the delay a non-jurisdictional defect, unless
it is shown that the employer has been prejudiced thereby * * *.  This trend conforms to the need of protecting
the workman whose inferiority vis-a-vis the employer
has always been marked by disadvantage (Civil Code of the Philippines,
Article 24).”

WHEREFORE, the decision of respondent Workmen’s
Compensation Commission of August 5, 1965, affirming the award of its chief referee of
April 26, 1965
in favor of respondent Louise Mateu, is hereby
affirmed.  With costs against petitioner
Northwest Orient Airlines, Inc.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Sanchez, Castro, Capistrano, Teehankee,
and Barredo, JJ., concur.

^[1]
Petition, Annex H, pp. 1-2.

^[2]
L-25665, May 22, 1969.

^[3]
L-20381, December 24, 1963.

^[4]
24 SCRA 484 (1968).