SALUD N. CARREON, PETITIONER, VS. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, PILAR G. VDA. DE TAÑO, FOR HERSELF AND IN BEHALF OF THE MINORS, NENITA, ELMAR AND REBECCA, ALL SURNAMED TAÑO…

This is a petition to review the decision of the Workmen’s
Compensation Commission in RO4-WCU Case No. 143329 entitled “Pilar G. Vda. de Taño, for herself and in behalf of the minor children:  namely, Nenita, Elmar and Rebecca, all surnamed Taño,
Claimants, versus, Salud N. Carreon,
Operator of UBL and SILCAR,
INC., Respondent”, the dispositive part of which
reads:

“WHEREFORE, modified as above-indicated, the decision appealed
from should be as it is hereby AFFIRMED and respondent SALUD
N. CARREON and/or UBL
and/or SILCAR, INC., are hereby ordered jointly or
severally to:

1.  Pay to claimants, PILAR
G. VDA. DE TAÑO and her
minor children named above, in lump sum and thru this Commission, the total sum
of FIVE THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED PESOS (P5,200.00) as death compensation benefits
under Sections 8, 9 and 10 of the Act, as amended;

2.  Pay to claimant, PILAR
G. VDA. DE TAÑO the further
sum of ONE HUNDRED PESOS (P100.00) in lump sum and also thru this Commission,
as reimbursement for burial expenses under said Section 8 of the Act, as
amended; and

3.  Pay to this Commission directly the sum of
FIFTY EIGHT PESOS (P58.00) as administrative fees which includes the costs of
this review pursuant to Section 55 of the same Act.

SO ORDERED.

Quezon
City, October
23, 1975.”^[1]

On July 26, 1973,
Pilar G. Vda. de Taño, for herself and in behalf of her minor children, Nenita, Elmar and Rebecca, all
surnamed Taño, filed a Notice and Claim for
Compensation with Regional Office No. 4, Workmen’s Compensation Section, at
Manila asking to recover from the United Bus Lines, SILCAR
Taxicab and the owner or manager, Salud N. Carreon, compensation benefits for the death of Guillermo
J. Taño who died on June 29, 1973 as a result of
injuries sustained during a shooting incident between the PC-METROCOM and the Contreras gang on Taft Avenue corner Remedios St., Manila, on June 27, 1973.

On September 3, 1973,
Salud N. Carreon, through
counsel, filed an answer contending that she is not and has never been the
employer of the deceased, Guillermo J. Taño, and she
is not and has never been engaged in any kind of business in her personal
capacity.^[2]

After a hearing on the merits, the Acting Referee rendered
judgment in favor of the claimants and ordered SILCAR,
INC., UBL Taxi and Salud N.
Carreon, jointly and severally, to pay the minors the
amount of P5,200.00 as death compensation and the additional sum of P200.00 as
burial and death benefits and to pay the sum of P53.00 as administrative fees.^[3]

The respondents appealed to the Workmen’s Compensation Commission
which affirmed with modification the de­cision of the Acting Referee.

The petitioner, Salud N. Carreon, assigns the following error:

“THE WCC DENIED YOUR PETITIONER DUE
PROCESS OF LAW, ACTED ARBITRARILY, CAPRICIOUSLY AND WHIMSICALLY, AND ERRED IN
HOLDING YOUR PETITIONER PERSONALLY LIABLE TO THE HEIRS OF THE DECEASED
GUILLERMO J. TAÑO FOR DEATH BENEFITS UNDER THE
WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION ACT, THERE BEING ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE, NOT EVEN A
SCINTILLA, THAT YOUR PETITIONER WAS THE EMPLOYER OF THE DECEASED AT ANY TIME,
THE VERY EVIDENCE FOR CLAIMANTS BEING THAT SILCAR,
INC. WAS THE EMPLOYER; THE TRANSCRIPTS OF THE HEARING PROVING THE UNDENIED CLAIM OF PETITIONER THAT SHE MUST HAVE BEEN
DISCHARGED AS RESPONDENT AND SILCAR, INC. IMPLEADED IN HER PLACE; AND THE DECISION OF THE WCC ITSELF MAKING NO EXPRESS AND CERTAIN FINDING THAT THERE
WAS AN EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE
DECEASED.”^[4]

The facts, as found by the Workmen’s Compensation Commission,
are:

“There is no dispute that the late Guillermo J. Taño, who in life was a taxicab driver, was an employee of
respondent SALUD N. CARREON
and/or UBL and SILCAR,
INC.; that on June 27, 1973, in the afternoon, while he was driving a taxicab
belonging to the respondent within the immediate vicinity of Taft Avenue corner
Remedios Streets, Manila, Guillermo J. Taño sustained injuries, when he was hit accidentally in a
cross-fire, in a shooting incident between the PC-Metrocom
on one hand and the Contreras Gang on the other; and that his gunshot wound was
through and through the right arm and the clavicular
region, resulting to fracture of the right clavicle and contusions of the lung
or pulmonary hematoma.  Taño was rushed to
the Philippine General Hospital and placed under the medical care and
management of Dr. Jesus Benjamin Mendoza, who accomplished the Physician’s Report
(Exhibit ‘C’).

On June 29, 1973,
or two (2) days after the accidental shooting, Taño
died at the PGH.

On July 14, 1973, the incident was investigated by the Manila
Metropolitan Police and it was disclosed that the late cab driver was a one
time member of the Grievance Committee of their union and that herein Salud N. Carreon, categorically
declared that Taño had never been admonished by her,
nor was he ever penalized for any violation of company rules and
regulations.  It was further disclosed
that deceased was a good family man, a cooperative neighbor and an up­right
citizen.

There is no doubt that the late Guillermo J. Taño
died due to wounds suffered accidentally, out of and in the course of his
employment as taxicab driver.”^[5]

The petition is meritorious.

The only issue is whether or not the petitioner was an employer
of the deceased, Guillermo J. Taño.

The record shows that the employer of Guillermo J. Taño was the Silcar, Inc., a
domestic operation.  Thus when the
respondent, Pilar G. Vda.
de Taño, testified on November 5, 1973, she said:

“ATTY. PARUNGO:  (To the witness)

“Mrs.
Taño, are you the same claimant in this case, in this
Workmen’s Compensation Section Case No. 143329?

A     Yes,
sir.

Q    Do
you know the respondent in this case Silcar
Incorporation?

A     Yes,
sir.

Q    Why
do you know the respondent in this case?

A     Because
my husband worked with the respondent when he was still alive.

Q    Who
is your husband?

A     Guillermo
Taño.”^[6]

Indeed, the private respondents, in their comment, state
“xxx that herein respondent SILCAR, INC., will
be the one to shoulder solely the sum of P5,300.00 due to
private-respondents-claimants, x x x “.^[7]
The said com­ment admits that the petitioner, Salud
N. Carreon, was herself an employee of Silcar, Inc.^[8]

The record also shows that the UBL,
which is a mere business name, is operated by Silcar,
Inc.  The petitioner is not the operator
of the taxicab business.

And finally, in the Employer’s Report of Accident or Sickness, Silcar, Inc. appears as the employer.^[9]

In view of the foregoing, the petitioner cannot be held liable
for the compensation benefits awarded to Guillermo J. Taño.

WHEREFORE, the petition for review is hereby granted and
the decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission sought to be reviewed is
modified in the sense that it is set aside as to the petitioner and affirmed as
to Silcar, Inc. which is solely responsible to pay
the death compensation and reimbursement of burial expenses and administrative
fees and costs set forth in said decision.

SO ORDERED.

Teehankee, (Chairman), Makasiar, Guerrero, De Castro, and Melencio-Herrera, JJ., concur.

^[1] Decision,
Annex “E”, Rollo, p. 70.

^[2]
Annex “B”, Rollo, p. 58.

^[3] Rollo, p. 63.

^[4]
Brief for the Petitioner, pp. a-b, Rollo, p.
158.

^[5] Rollo, pp. 68-69.

^[6]
Transcript, Rollo, pp. 76-77.

^[7] Rollo, p. 138.

^[8] Rollo, p. 136.

^[9]
Original Record, p. 33.