LOLITA SANTOS, PETITIONER, VS. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND MANILA BAY HOSIERY MILLS INC., RESPONDENTS.

Petition for review on certiorari, filed on October 19,
1977, of the Order dated July 7, 1977 of then Acting Secretary Amado G. Inciong which denied
petitioner’s “Ex-Parte Motion to Enforce
Additional Weekly Compensation”, on the ground that her “illness has
already been cured or arrested.”

On December 2, 1977,
respondent Department, now Ministry of Labor filed its “Comment” thru
Ministry Counsel Lydia Arada-Navarro.  Petitioner, by way of reply, filed a
“Rejoinder to Comment” on December
19, 1977.  Per resolution of May 24, 1978, We resolved to consider
public respondent’s comment as answer to the petition and to require the
parties to file their respective memoranda. 
In compliance therewith, petitioner filed a “Brief” in lieu of
memorandum thru counsel, Atty. Bonifacio R. de
Luna.  Public respondent, the Ministry of
Labor, adopted its comment as its memorandum. 
Solicitor General Estelito P. Mendoza,^[1]
having received notice of pendency of this case on June 22, 1978, manifested his desire
to make an official stand on the matter, and filed a “Manifestation”
on August 9, 1978.  He submits that – “. . . the respondent
Minister of Labor, acting as chairman of the Compensation Appeals and Review
Staff of the Ministry of Labor, committed a reversible error or a grave abuse
of discretion, amounting to lack of jurisdiction, when he issued the aforesaid
Orders of July 7, 1977 and August 30, 1977 in the same workmen’s compensation
case.  Perforce, the final and partially
executed decision of October 2, 1975
in this workmen’s compensation case should now be fully satisfied . . .”^[2]
Thereafter, the case was deemed submitted for decision on May 18, 1979.

The factual and procedural antecedents of this petition
follow.  Petitioner started working at
respondent Manila Bay Hosiery Mills Inc. as seamstress on June 10, 1966 after undergoing the required
physical and medical examination.  Her
work consisted mainly of sewing socks and bags. 
In 1973 she was disabled from labor, from July 10 up to September 16, on
account of illnesses, i.e., “cholecystitis, cholelithiasis, dilated common bile duct etiology
sphincter.” She returned to work on September 17, 1973.^[3]
Then she filed on November 27, 1973 a “Notice of Injury or Sickness and
Claim for Compensation”^[4]
with Regional Office No. 4, Manila,
which was docketed as WC Case No. 147119. 
Respondent company failed to controvert the claim.  Accordingly, then Acting Chief Referee and
Chief of Section Ernesto A. Cruz issued on August 9, 1974 an “Award”^[5]
in favor of petitioner granting her P1,707.19 as compensation and reimbursement
of medical expenses.  This amount was
duly paid by respondent Company as evidenced by a “Satisfaction of Award
or Decision”^[6]
dated October 22, 1974.

Meanwhile, prior to the final settlement of WC Case No. 147119 or
on February 23, 1974,
petitioner again became sick.  She was
hospitalized at the Mary Johnston
Hospital and was forced to file a
sick leave for one year starting from February
23, 1974.^[7]
According to the statement dated March
7, 1975 of Diosdado P. Villarama, attending physician, petitioner was suffering
from “gastric hyperacidity, iron deficiency, and anemia”.^[8]
Petitioner did not return to work because the company allegedly terminated her
employment effective February 12, 1975,
upon the recommendation of the company physician.^[9]
She was then receiving a daily wage of P8.40, working 6 days a week.^[10]

On March 17, 1975,
petitioner filed a “Notice of Injury or Sickness and Claim for
Compensation” with the Workmen’s Compensation Unit, Regional Office No. 4,
Manila, which was docketed as WC
Case No. 164491.  The case having been
filed before March 31, 1975,
shall be processed and adjudicated in accordance with the law, rules and
procedure existing prior to the effectivity of the
new law on Employees Compensation and State Insurance Fund.^[11]

She alleged that she was suffering from pulmonary tuberculosis
(PTB), chronic gastritis, and anemia which were “… caused by the working
condition such as heat, obnoxious chemical odor, flying fabric waste, smoke
from machine, previous continuous night shift work, for around five (5) days
from 2 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. then sudden exposure to outside element after work
like rain, floody streets from premises, etc.”
Respondent company filed on June 6,
1975 an “Employer’s Report of Accident or Sickness” per
Arthur Tan, General Manager, and alleged the claimant’s illnesses were
“… neither caused nor aggravated by her employment.”^[12]

Acting Referee Gerardo D. Rabanes
rendered a “Decision”^[13]
dated October 2, 1975 in
favor of claimant, herein petitioner.  He
found her illnesses to be work-connected and observed that “… her
working place was too hot, that the machine she was using also become hot, foul
odor of chemicals and flying cotton dusts which mixed the air she breathe, and
she was also exposed to sudden change of temperature”; and that “(U)nder section 15 of the Act, the claimant is entitled to
total and permanent disability compensation . . .” Accordingly, the
company was ordered to pay:

“1.  The claimant, thru this Office, the amount of
TWO THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED SIXTY ONE AND TWELVE CENTAVOS (P2,661.12) plus 60% of
her average weekly wage accruing hereinafter until the maximum amount of
P6,000.00 or 208 weeks shall have been reached, whichever is earlier, pursuant
to section 15 of the Act;

2.   The claimant, thru this Office, the amount of
P415.30 as reimbursement of medical expenses, it being duly supported by
official receipts pursuant to section 13 of the Act;

3.   Atty. Bonifacio D.
de Luna, counsel for claimant, the amount of ONE HUNDRED THIRTY THREE PESOS
(P133.00) plus 5% of the 60% of the claimant’s average weekly wage accruing
hereinafter pursuant to Section 31 of the Act;

4.   To the Workmen’s Compensation Fund, the
amount of P26.00 as decision fee, pursuant to Section 55 of the Act.”^[14]

x        x         x

Claimant, herein petitioner, filed a “Motion for Execution
of Decision” on December 9, 1975,
and an “Ex-Parte Reiterated Motion for
Execution” on January 19, 1976.  A “Writ of Execution” was issued on
March 18, 1976.^[15]
However, per the “Sheriff’s Return”^[16]
dated March 23, 1976, of Deputy Sheriff Renato C. Llobrera, it appears that herein petitioner was directly
paid by the Company “… the sum of P3,261.12 corresponding to what was
due up to October 2, 1975,” … for which reason there is no further need to
enforce the writ.^[17]
It appears also that respondent Company failed to make the additional payments.

On February 10, 1977,
petitioner moved to enforce weekly payments of award with the Compensation
Appeals and Review Staff, Department, now Ministry of Labor, to which effective
March 31, 1976, workmen’s
compensation cases were transferred.^[18]
Again, on April 19, 1977, Atty. Bonifacio D. de Luna,
counsel for herein petitioner, also wrote a letter to the Employee’s
Compensation Commission (ECC) requesting for “favorable action” on
petitioner’s claim for additional weekly payments of award.^[19]
The same was referred by ECC Executive Director E.M. Cayapas
thru a first indorsement dated April 27, 1977 to the Compensation Appeals and
Review Staff of the Ministry of Labor for appropriate action.^[20]

On July 7, 1977, then Acting Secretary, now Deputy Minister of
Labor Amado G. Inciong
issued an “Order”^[21]
holding that “…claimant is no longer entitled to further weekly compensation”
for the reason that “… the latest x-ray examinations taken on September
23, 1975 reveals . . . that claimant’s illness has already been cured or
arrested.” Petitioner moved for reconsideration of the same on August 11, 1977, alleging, inter
alia, that the decision has already become
final and in fact has been partially executed. 
On August 13, 1977,
however, the then Secretary, now Minister, of Labor, Hon. Blas
F. Ople denied the said Motion for Reconsideration.  Hence, this Petition.

This petition is clearly invested with merit.  As the Solicitor General pointed out, the
decision dated Oct. 2, 1975
of Acting Referee Rabanes has long become final and executory and has in fact been partly executed and,
therefore, the same can no longer be disturbed or modified, whether directly or
indirectly.  The questioned order dated
July 7, 1977 denying petitioner’s claim for additional compensation and in
effect setting aside said decision, was issued in excess of and/or with grave
abuse of discretion, amounting to lack of jurisdiction.

The rule well-settled in our jurisdiction to the effect that in
workmen’s compensation cases the referee’s decision which has become final and executory can no longer be modified or set aside^[22]
is grounded on fundamental considerations of public policy and sound practice
namely that at the risk of occasional error, the judgment of courts and award
of quasi-judicial agencies must become final at some definite date fixed by
law.^[23]

Finally, as the Solicitor General also observed, respondent
employer having refused or failed to pay the weekly compensation, petitioner
can now rightfully claim the entire balance of the disability compensation due
her at one time, pursuant to the last paragraph of Section 22, Workmen’s
Compensation Act as amended.^[24]
Per her own admission, she has already received the sum of P3,261.12.  Subtracting this from P6,000.00, the total
entitlement, she is entitled to receive the balance or P2,738.88.  Petitioner is also entitled to interest on
the said amount at the rate of 12% from February
10, 1977, the date she made her demand on respondent employer.^[25]

WHEREFORE, the Order dated July 7, 1977 of Deputy Minister Amado
G. Inciong is hereby SET ASIDE.  Respondent-employer
Manila Bay
Hosiery Mills, Inc. is hereby ordered to pay directly to herein petitioner the
sum of P2,738.88 plus 12% interest from February
10, 1977, the date demand was made, until fully paid or satisfied
by respondent-employer.  Costs against
respondent-employer.

SO ORDERED.

Barredo, (Chairman), Antonio, Aquino, Concepcion, Jr., and Abad Santos,
JJ., concur.

^[1] He
was assisted by Assistant Solicitor General Ruben E. Agpalo
and Solicitor Deusdedit B. Quijano.

^[2]
Citing Quintos vs. Republic, Nos. L-46249-52, August 31, 1977, 78 SCRA 547.

^[3]
Records, p. 136.

^[4] Id.,
p. 156.

^[5] Id.,
p. 135.

^[6] Id.,
p. 124.

^[7] Rollo, at pp. 44-45.  Brief for Petitioner.

^[8]
Records, p. 122.

^[9] Id.,
p. 105.

^[10] Rollo, p. 7.

^[11]
Article 300, par. 2, Labor Code, as amended by PD 626.

^[12] Id.,
p. 118.

^[13] Rollo, p. 7.

^[14] Id.,
at pp. 9-10.

^[15] Id.,
p. 80.

^[16] Id.,
p. 81.

^[17] Rollo, p. 3, Petition, par. 4.

^[18]
See Article 297, PD 442 (Labor Code), as amended.

^[19]
Records, p. 78.

^[20] Id.,
p. 76.

^[21] Rollo, p. 11, Petition, Annex “B”.

^[22] Ruelan vs. Republic, 70 SCRA 615; Soliven vs. WCC, 77 SCRA 519; Cruz vs. WCC,
81 SCRA 445.

^[23]
Ramos vs. Republic, 69 SCRA 576.

^[24] “Sec.
22.  x x x Any failure on the part of the employer to comply with
this obligation to pay any of the sums due to the injured laborer or his
dependents in accordance with this Act, shall entitle the beneficiary to claim
the entire balance of the compensation at one time.”

^[25] Central Bank Circular No.
416, July 29, 1974.