TERESITA GALINDEZ, IN HER OWN BEHALF AND IN BEHALF OF HER MINOR SON JOSE GALINDEZ, JR., PETITIONERS, VS. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION AND THE UNIVERSITY OF MINDANAO, RESPON…

Petition for review of the decision dated June 24, 1975 of the
Workmen’s Compensation Commission in ROXII-WCU Case No. 534-73, reversing the
Award dated September 17, 1973 of the Acting Chief, Workmen’s Compensation
Unit, Regional Office XII, Davao City.

FACTS OF THE CASE:

On May 25, 1973, at about 10:30 in the morning, the
deceased Jose Galindez, Sr. was aboard a bus from Davao City bound for Tagum,
Davao del Norte, when the bus figured
in an accident which resulted in his death. 
At the time of his demise, he was a resident of Tagum and was receiving a
salary of P386.00 a month as a college professor of the Tagum branch of the
University of Mindanao based in Davao City.

On July 13, 1973, petitioner, widow of deceased Jose Galindez,
Sr., in her own behalf and in behalf of her minor son, Jose Galindez, Jr.,
filed a claim for death compensation with Regional Office No. XII, Davao
City.  On July 18, 1973, a copy of the
notice and claim for compensation was furnished deceased’s employer, the University
of Mindanao.

On September 17, 1973, Regional Office No. XII issued an Award in
favor of claimants, pertinent portion of which is quoted hereunder:

“A careful perusal of the records of this case disclose that
the late Jose B. Galindez, Sr. died from a vehicular accident which arose out
of and in the course of his employ­ment as a Teacher of the respondent.  The records further show that the right to
compensation of the claimants has not been controverted.  Therefore, under the Workmen’s Compensation
Act, as amended, death benefits should be extended to the claimants (widow and
one child) who are wholly dependent upon the deceased for support x x x.”

On October 6, 1973,
private respondent moved for a reconsideration of the said Award, on the ground
that “by the enclosed copy of controversion marked as Annex ‘A’ it will be
shown that the subject claim was duly controverted” (pp. 15-16, rec.).

On October 19, 1973, Regional Office No. XII found no basis to
disturb the Award and resolved to deny private respondent’s motion for
reconsideration and to elevate the entire records of the case to the Workmen’s
Compensation Commission for review.

On June 24, 1975, the Commission rendered a decision reversing
the Award appealed from pertinent portions
of which read as follows:

“It clearly appears on record that the deceased met with an
accident in Carmen, Davao del Norte. 
However, the place of work of the deceased, as a college professor of
the respondent, was in Tagum, Davao del Norte which was also the residence of the
deceased, as shown by the address of the claimant-widow.  The records does (sic) not show the reason
why he was in Carmen, Davao del Norte, riding in a passenger bus, when he met
with the accident.  Neither was there a
showing that the deceased was in the place of the accident on an official
mission or in furtherance of his official duties as a college professor.  To supply or at least presume the facts in
support of compensability under the circumstance would be stretching too far
the legislative intent in the enactment of the law.

“The Supreme
Court incorporated in its decision, in the case of Iloilo Dock and Engineering
Co. vs. WCC and Irenea M. Pablo, G.R. No. L-26341, November 27, 1968, the
following citation:

‘The statute is not intended to relieve completely an employee from
the burden of showing that accidental injuries suffered by him actually were
sustained in the course of his employment. 
It is not the law that mere proof of an accident, without other evidence,
creates the presumption under Section 21 of the Workmen’s Compensation Law
(Consol. Laws, C. 67) that the accident arose out of and in the course of
employment.  On the contrary, it has been
frequently held, directly and indirectly, that there must be some evidence from
which the conclusion can be drawn that the injuries did not arise out of and in
the course of employment.  Proof of the
accident will give rise to the statutory presumption only where some connection
appears between the accident and the employment.’

The above-cited opinion is a deterrent from
the misapplication of the causative provision of the law.  Otherwise, without this criterion to follow,
employers will frequently be exposed to unjustified claims.

“It is therefore the considered opinion of this Commission
that this case does not fall within the coverage of Act 3428, as amended.”

On February 3, 1976,
petitioner received a copy of the decision dated June 24, 1975.

On February 12, 1976,
petitioner filed a notice of appeal of decision dated June 24 1975 and, after
having been granted by this Court an extension of time within which to file its
petition for review, filed the instant petition on March 13, 1976.

The case of Iloilo Dock
and Engineering Co. vs. WCC, et al. (supra), on which the decision is mainly
anchored, has not been intended to apply to a case such as this where an award
was granted based solely on petitioner’s claim and supporting papers, without
any formal hearing, pursuant to the provisions of Section 2, Rule 9 of the
Rules of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission. 
The cited ruling clearly contemplates a case where, after claimant is
afforded the opportunity to be heard and to present all his evidence, there
still subsists a void between the accident and the employment.  The contrary view subverts the ends for which
the Workmen’s Compensation Act, a social legislation, was enacted.

As held by this Court in
Cabinta, et al. vs. WCC, et al.
(L-42639, July 30, 1976, 72 SCRA 266) and reiterated in Jacob vs. WCC, et al. (L-43302, August 31, 1976, 72 SCRA 575), if respondent
Commission believed that the documents
presented by the peti­tioners were not sufficient to show compensability of the
claim, it should have requested the presentation of the proper evidence by the
petitioner, but not to dismiss the case outright.

A careful scrutiny of the
records on hand, however, would show that the presentation of such additional
evidence by petitioner is not even necessary to justify a finding of
compensability.  The records are clear
(1) that the deceased was employed as a college pro­fessor of the University of
Mindanao (Tagum branch) at Tagum, Davao del Norte, a place about 60 kilometers
from Davao City; (2) that the deceased was a resident of Tagum, Davao del Norte
at the time of his death; (3) that the main office of the University of
Mindanao is in Davao City; (4) that the accident took place along the highway
of Carmen, Davao del Norte while deceased was riding a bus; (5) that the
accident occurred at around 10:30 in the morning of May 25, 1973, a working
day, being a Friday; (6) that the respondent failed to disprove the claim of
petitioner that the deceased at the time of his death was going to attend a
conference at the University of Mindanao in Davao City for which he was called;
and (7) that there is no record to show that the deceased took a leave of
absence from his work, or was absent from his work on the day of the accident.

Indeed, foregoing situations are sufficient to create a
disputable presumption that deceased was in the performance of an official
mission for the school at the time of the accident and that his death was
therefore compensable.  Nothing of record
can be found that private respondent has presented evidence to rebut the
presumption.  It made no attempt in its
comment to lend evidentiary support to its unsubstantiated claim that deceased
was not on an official mission at the time of the accident.

Furthermore, the private respondent failed to seasonably
controvert the claim as found by the Referee and as re-stated by the respondent
Commission which did not negate the
same.  Such failure constitutes waiver of
non-jurisdictional defenses.

The very decision of respondent Commission states that respondent
failed to controvert claimant’s right within the period fixed by Act No. 3428.

WHEREFORE, JUDGMENT IS HEREBY RENDERED REVERSING THE
DECISION DATED JUNE 14, 1975 OF RESPONDENT COMMISSION, AND ORDERING RESPONDENT
UNIVERSITY OF MINDANAO TO PAY:

1.  CLAIMANTS TERESITA GALINDEZ AND HER MINOR SON,
JOSE GALINDEZ, JR., THE SUM OF SIX THOUSAND (P6,000.00) PESOS AS DEATH
COMPENSATION, AND TWO HUNDRED (P200.00) PESOS FOR BURIAL EXPENSES;

2.  H. & A. CABARROGUIS, AGRAVANTE &
SANDIEGO, THE SUM EQUIVALENT TO 10% OF THE RECOVERABLE AMOUNT AS ATTORNEY’S
FEES; AND

3.  THE SUM OF SIXTY-ONE (P61.00) PESOS AS ADMINISTRATIVE
FEE.

WITH COSTS AGAINST RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY OF MINDANAO.

SO ORDERED.

Teehankee, (Chairman), Muñoz Palma, Martin, Fernandez, and Guerrero, JJ., concur.