CESAREO DE LEON, AS WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSIONER, PABLO SARAGINA, AND FILOMENA TAMBIS, PETITIONERS, VS. THE HON. JUDGE MACAPANTON ABBAS OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF …

This is a petition for a writ of certiorari and mandamus to set aside certain
orders of respondent, Hon. Macapanton Abbas, as Judge of First Instance of
Davao, and to compel him to allow petitioners Pablo Saragina and Filomena
Tambis, as defendants in Civil Case No. 2586 of said court, to appeal as
paupers, to permit petitioner Cesareo de Leon as Workmen’s Compensation
Commissioner, likewise, as defendant in said case, to perfect his appeal from
the decision therein rendered, without filing an appeal bond, and to certify the
record on appeal filed in connection with said appeal.

Petitioners Pablo Saragina and Filomena Tambis are the parents of Jacinto
Saragina, driver of a truck belonging to Agustin Pahamotang and used by the
latter in logging operations. On March 6, 1954, Jacinto Saragina died in
consequences of injuries sustained by him as said truck fell into a ditch and
turned turtle, somewhere in Campostela, Davao, on said date. By a communication
dated November 21, 1955, the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner advised
Pahamotang that the sum of P1,996.80 was due to the parents of the deceased by
way of compensation for his death, aside from P200 as burial expenses. A
reconsideration of this award having been denied, Pahamotang giive notice of
appeal and then filed with this Court, on December 11, 1956, a petition for
certiorari with preliminary injunction, which was docketed as G. R. No. L-11657,
for a review of said award. The petition was dismissed, however, on March 8,
1957, on motion of the respondents therein (petitioners herein), who claimed
that said petition had been filed beyond the statutory period.

One year later, or on March 1, 1958, Pahamotang instituted Civil Case No.
2586 of the Court of First Instance of Davao against petitioners herein. In the
complaint therein filed, Pahamotang alleged that the aforementioned award of the
Workmen’s Compensation Commission had been made without complying with the
pertinent law and in violation thereof, and, accordingly, prayed that it be set
aside and declared null and void. In due course, the defendants therein
(petitioners herein) filed a motion to dismiss, the consideration of which was
eventually deferred until after the trial of the case on the merits.
Subsequently, the defendants therein (petitioners herein) were declared in
default, for failure to file an answer within the reglementary period, and, upon
the evidence introduced by Pahamotang, decision was rendered on August 7, 1958,
annulling the aforementioned award. On August 20, 1958, the defendants therein
(petitioners herein) filed a motion to lift the order of default, upon the
ground of accident and excusable negligence, but, the motion was denied by an
order dated September 9, 1958. A reconsideration of this order having been,
likewise, denied, the defendants therein (petitioner’s herein) filed a notice of
their intention to appeal and petition that the appeal of Pablo Saragina and
Filomena Tambis be given due course as pauper’s appeal. The court, presided over
by Hon. Macapanton Abbas, Judge, “denied” the “notice of appeal and petition to
appeal as pauper” upon the ground that it had not been “filed within the
reglementary period”. On motion of the defendants therein (petitioners herein),
the court, by an order dated January 2, 1959, reconsidered its stand insofar as
the timeliness of the notice of appeal, but refused to allow Pablo Saragina and
Filomena Tambis to appeal as paupers, upon the ground that the principal
defendant was the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner, and declared that the
record on appeal would be certified upon the filing of defendants’ appeal bond.
The defendants therein (petitioners herein) sought a reconsideration of this
order, insofar as it denied the appeal as paupers of Pablo Saragina and Filomena
Tambis and required the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner to file a bond, but
in vain. Hence the present action for certiorari and mandamus to compel
allowance of the appeal of Pablo Saragina and Filomena Tambis as paupers, and
certification of the aforementioned record on appeal without any appeal
bond.

It is not disputed that Pablo Saragina and Filomena Tambis are poor. This
notwithstanding, the lower court refused to allow them to appeal as paupers upon
the ground that they are nominal defendants in said Civil Case No. 2586, that
the principal defendant therein is the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner, with
whom they are jointly sued, and that all defendants have filed a joint record on
appeal and are represented by the legal counsel of the Department of Labor. If
Pablo Saragina and Filomena Tambis, whose indigeney is admitted, were merely
nominal parties, then this would be an added reason to exempt them from
incurring the usual expenses entailed by an appeal, and, hence, to authorize
their appeal as paupers. The fact is, however, that being the parties in whose
favor the award sought to be annulled has been made, Pablo Saragina and Filomena
Tambis are not nominal parties, but the principal parties and real parties in
interest, without whom no decision on the validity of said award could
legally be rendered. The nominal party was the Workmen’s Compensation
Commissioner.

With respect to the appeal taken by the latter, it is, also, patent that he
being sued in his official capacity, aside from being a nominal party, the main
action is in effect one against the Government which is not required to file an
appeal bond. Accordingly, respondent Judge committed a grave abuse of discretion
in requiring the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner to file such bond as a
condition for the perfection of his appeal and the certification of the record
on appeal.

There being now no question that the same has been seasonably filed and is
regular insofar as its form and contents are concerned, the writs prayed for are
hereby granted and respondent Judge is directed to allow the appeal of Pablo
Saragina and Filomena Tambis as paupers and to certify said record on appeal
without the usual appeal bond, with costs against respondent Agustin Pahamotang.
It is so ordered.

Bengzon, C.J., Labrador, Reyes, J.B,L., Barrera,
Paredes, and Dizon, JJ., concur.