ALATCO TRANSPORTATION, INC., PETITIONER, VS. THE WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION AND CARMEN LEGASPI VDA. DE CATIMBANG, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.

Alatco Transportation, Inc. seeks the
review of an award made by a referee of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission,
as affirmed by a member of said Commission, and, later, by the Commission en
banc.

While crossing a street, in Pili, Camarines Sur, in the performance
of his duties as inspector-checker of the Alatco
Transportation, Inc. – to inspect a bus thereof – Pastor Catimbang
was, on January 22, 1954,
“bumped” by another Alatco bus.  As a consequence, his right leg was fractured
and he became incapacitated to work, until June, 1954, when he resumed his work
in the company, but, this time, as an office checker.  He held this job until June 1, 1962, when he was separated from the
service.  On February 15, 1966, he filed, with the Workmen’s
Compensation Commission, a claim for compensation, based upon said injury
sustained in 1954.  Alatco
filed, on April 11, 1966,
its “Employer’s Report of Accident or Sickness” stating, inter
alia, that it would controvert the claim,
since the “cause of action has already expired, it being more than 10
yrs.”

On May 21, 1966, Catimbang filed an
amended claim, alleg­ing therein that he had “felt the weakening of his
bodily constitution and mental faculties due to a previous accident or injury
he suffered in line of duty as an inspector” of Alatco
(referring to the accident of January 22, 1954), and that, in fact, he was
“separated from the service of the respondent company by reason of”
his aforementioned “injury or sickness incurred in line of duty.” No
notice of contro­version thereof having been filed by
Alatco, Catimbang moved
that his amended claim be declared uncontroverted,
and Acting Referee Napoleon H. Niñofranco, of the
Workmen’s Compensation Commis­sion, so declared in an order dated August 5,
1966, which, also, set the case for the reception of claimant’s evidence on
August 23, 1966, and authorized Alatco’s counsel to
“cross-examine the wit­nesses for the claimant, should he (counsel) so
desire.”

Over six (6) months later, or on February 13, 1967, Alatco filed
a motion for reconsideration of said order of August 5, 1966, and “reinstatement of its right to
controvert the claim of Catim­bang.” On March 9, 1967, said Acting Referee
issued an order modifying that of August
5, 1966, by granting Alatco five (5) days
from notice to register its controversion.  In its notice of controversion,
filed on March 29, 1967, Alatco alleged prescription
of action; that the illness of Catimbang was
contracted after his separation from the service and, hence, “not
work-connected”; that Catimbang was “hale
and hearty” at the time of his separation from the service; and that it
was only upon the filing of the amended claim that Alatco
came to know about his alleged illness.

Pastor Catimbang having, meanwhile,
died on March 16, 1967, his
widow and children substituted him as claimants.  Soon after, or on May 8, 1967, they filed a motion to set aside the
order of March 9, reinstating Alatco’s right of controversion. 
Despite Alatco’s opposition thereto, the
Acting Referee granted the motion, in an order dated July 12, 1967. 
Presently, or on July 17, 1967,
said officer issued an award, in favor of the claim­ants, directing Alatco to pay the following:

“1.  To the claimants, thru this Office, the sum of
FOUR THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED SEVENTY TWO PESOS (P4,772.00) as compen­sation and
reimbursement of medical expenses, less any amount already paid to the claimant
as compensation;

“2.  To this Office, the amount of FORTY ONE PESOS
(P41.00) as fee pursuant to Section 55 of the Act.

“3.  To Atty. Basilio M. Catimbang, counsel for the claimant, the amount of P200.00
as attorney’s fee, pursuant to Sec. 31 of the Act.”

On motion for reconsideration filed by Alatco,
said award was, on February 11, 1969,
affirmed by Associate Commissioner Paciano C. Villavieja, in a decision, the dispositive
part of which reads:

“WHEREFORE, premises duly considered, the Award sought to be
reconsidered is, as it is hereby, AFFIRMED and the respondent is or­dered:

“1.  To pay to claimants, through this Commission,
in lump sum, the total amount of FOUR THOUSAND (P4,000.00) PESOS, as
compensation benefits due to the claimants;

“2.  To pay to claimants, also through this
Commission, as reimbursement for medical expenses incurred, the total amount of
SEVEN HUNDRED SEVENTY-TWO (P772.00) PESOS, pursuant to Section 13 of the Act;

“3.  To pay to claimants’ counsel, Atty. Basilio M. Catimbang, the total
amount of FOUR HUNDRED SEVENTY-SEVEN and 20/100 (P477.20) PESOS, as attorneys
fees, pursuant to Section 31 of the Act; and

“4.  To pay to the Workmen’s Compen­sation Fund,
the total amount of FIFTY-THREE (P53.00) PESOS, as costs, which includes the
costs of this review, in accordance with Section 55 of the same Act.”

A reconsideration of this decision having been unanimously denied
by the Workmen’s Compensation Commission en banc, Alatco interposed the present appeal, in which it maintains
that said Com­mission had erred:  (1)
“in awarding compensation to claimants-respondents on the ground that
petitioner failed to seasonably controvert the amended claim”; (2)
“in not dismissing the case on the ground of prescription”; (3)
“in awarding P772.00 as medical expenses to claimants-respondents”;
and (4) “in awarding attorney’s fees to claimants-respondents.”

In support of its first assignment of error, Alatco
argues that it could not possibly controvert the amended claim of Catim­bang until the same had been admitted; that said
amended claim was admitted by the order of August 5, 1966, which was received
by Alatco on August 11, 1966; that it could not file
notice of con­troversion thereafter, because the
amended claim was already declared uncontroverted in
said order; that, when, on motion of Alatco, its
right to controvert was reinstated by the order of March 9, 1967, Alatco filed its notice of controversion
within the period given in said order; and that the amended claim is based upon
the same injury sustained by Catimbang in 1954.

Alatco’s pretense is untenable.  Even though the order of August 5, 1966, declared that the amended claim
was uncon­troverted, nothing prevented Alatco from filing its notice of controversion
– if it really wanted to do so – within the statutory period computed from August 11, 1966, when it received
notice of said order of August 5, 1966.  Yet, Alatco did not
do so.  What is worse, it did nothing,
until six (6) months later, or on Febru­ary
13, 1967, when it filed a motion for reconsideration of said order
of August 5, 1966, and
reinstatement of its right to contro­vert the amended claim.  Such motion necessarily implied an admission
of the fact that it had not as yet controverted the
amended claim and that it no longer had the right to controvert the same,
unless it was reinstated in accordance with law.

It is true that said right was reinstated by an order of March 9, 1967, but this order was set
aside and revoked by ano­ther order dated July 12, 1967.  The
records do not show, and petitioner does not maintain, that said order of July 12, 1967, was erroneous or had
been issued without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction.  In consequence thereof, the parties reverted
to their status prior to the issuance of the order of March 9, 1967. 
In other words, the amended claim is uncontroverted.

As a matter of fact, even the original claim should be deemed uncontroverted, Alatco not having
filed a notice of con­troversion “before the
fourteenth day of disability or within ten days after” it had
“knowledge of the alleged accident” in 1954.^[1]
The record shows that Alatco had knowledge of said
accident on the very date it happened, January
22, 1954.  The notice of con­troversion included in the “Employer’s Report of
Accident or Sickness” it filed twelve (12) years later, or on April 11,
1966, came, therefore, too late.

Alatco invokes prescription under its
second assignment of error.  It should be
noted, however, that the amended claim is based upon the illness that resulted
in Catimbang’s separation from the service on June 1, 1962.  Hence, the prescriptive period of ten (10)
years began to run from such date, not from 1954.  At any rate, since the amended claim is uncontroverted, Alatco can not
avail of the defense of prescription of action.

The third assignment of error is predicated upon the alleged
absence of competent evidence in support of the award of P772.00 for medical
expenses incurred by Catimbang.  This allegation is belied by the receipts
attached to page 17 of the Record of the Work­men’s Compensation Commission.

The last assignment of error is based upon the theory that Catimbang is not entitled to compensation, which is false.  Alatco is, however,
right in contending that the sum awarded as reim­bursement for medical expenses
may not be included in the com­putation of the attorney’s fees,1
which should, accordingly, be reduced to P400.00.

With this modification, the appealed decision of Associate
Commissioner Paciano C. Villavieja
is hereby affirmed, there­fore, in all other respects, with costs against Alatco Transportation, Inc.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Zaldivar, Castro, Fernando, Teehankee,
Barredo, Villamor, and Makasiar, JJ., concur.

Makalintal, J., took no part.

^[1]
Section 45, Act No. 3428.

1
Section 31, Act No. 3428, as amended.