REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, (PHILIPPINE NORMAL HALL), VS. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION AND DALMACIO SONGALIA, RESPONDENTS.

Appeal by the Government from a resolution of the Workmen’s
Compensation Commission refusing to reconsider a decision of a member
thereof sentencing the Republic of the Philippines to pay P1,385.00 to
claimant Dalmacio Songalia, and P14.00 to Regional Office No. 3 of the
Department of Labor as fee pursuant to section 55 of the Workmen’s
Compensation Act.

Said Dalmacio Songalia was on June 6, 1956, and for some time prior
thereto, an assistant cook of the Philippine Normal Hall, an adjunct of
the Philippine Normal College, which is a public school operated by
petitioner herein, the Republic of the Philippines. It appears that oh
said said date, as Songalia uncorked a thermos bottle for Dr. Florencia
Herrera, who boarded in said Normal Hall, the hot water in said
container splashed in such a way that part of it landed on his left
eye, thereby hurting the same. Dr. Herrera then gave him the
corresponding emergency medical treatment, but Songalia stopped working
from the next day, although he resumed work on June 11, 1956,
Subsequently, the injured left eye developed “glaucoma * * * secondary
to dislocated lens,” which, according to Dr. Salvador Degollacion, a
resident physician of the North Philippine General Hospital who treated
him on April 21, 1959, was “the result of the nature of (his)
employment” and resulted in “permanent total disability” of said eye.
On December 7, 1959, Songalia filed the corresponding notice of injury
or sickness and claim for compensation with Regional Office No. 3 of
the Department of Labor, which, by latter dated February 12, 1960,
asked the Solicitor General to submit a report on said injury or
sickness. This report was filedon February 26,1960. Soon thereafter, or
on March 17, 1960, the Regional Administrator of said office issued an
award directing the Government to pay P 1,387.37 to Songalia as
compensation and P14.00 to said Office, as fee under Section 55 of the
Workmen’s Compensation Act, as amended.

Petitioner herein moved for a reconsideration of said award, which
was denied. The matter was forwarded, therefore, to the Workmen’s
Compensation Commission, a member of which rendered a decision
affirming the award, except as to its amount, which was reduced to
P1,385.00. On motion for reconsideration of petitioner herein said
decision was affirmed by the Workmen’s, Compensation Commission sitting
en banc. Hence, this appeal by certiorari. The issues therein
raised by petitioner appellant May be summed up, as follows: 1) that
the Philippine Normal Hall, as an adjunct of the Philippine Normal
College, is exempt from the operation of the Workmen’s Compensation
Act; 2) that the injury sustained by Songalia was not connected with
his employment; and 3) that his claim under said Act should have, been
deemed controverted by the Government.

With respect to the first issue, section 3 of Act No. 3428, as amended, provides:

“This Act shall also be applicable to mounted
passengers in the service of the National Government and all its
political subdivisions and to the” employees and laborers employed in
public works and in the industrial concerns of the Government and to
all other persons performing manual labor in the service of the
National Government and its political subdivisions and
instrumentalities: Provided, however, That laborers and employees
insured with the Government Service Insurance System, and their
dependents when entitled to the benefits of the said insurance system
shall, in addition to the same be entitled to the benefits granted by
this Act.”

As assistant cook in the Philippine Normal Hall, claimant Songalia
was “performing manual labor in the service of the,National
Government,” or, at least, of one of its “instrumentalities,” and,
hence, is entitled to the benefits of the Workmen’s Compensation Act.

As regards the second issue, petitioner’s communication to the
Regional Administrator dated. February 26, 1960, gives the following
version of the circumstances under which the injury in question was
sustained:

“* * * It appears that sometime in the morning of *
* * June 6, 1956, the * * * claimant was requested by one Dr. Florencia
Herrera., a female boarder of the Normal Hall to get for her a
thermos bottle full of hot water which the complainant complied with
Instead of merely delivering the thermos bottle with its hot water
contents to Dr. Herrera, claimant, perhaps as an uncalled for gesture,
of courtesy himself opened the cork stop of the thermos bottle in a
negligent manner, by reason of which some of the scalding liquids
splashed and landed on his left eye. * * *.”

It should be noted that Dr. Herrera was a boarder in the Philippine,
Normal Hall, and that, as such, she was entitled to avail herself of
the services of Songalia, and this is conceded by petitioner. It is
apparent, also, from the latfer’s version, that Songalia’s injury was
the result of an “accident arising out of and in the course of his
employment.” The allegation to the effect that Songalia’s act, in
uncorking the bottle of thermos, was ail “uncalled for act of
courtesy’-even if we admitted it was. “uncalled for,” which we cannot
admit, considering that Dr. Herrera Was a lady and a boarder of the
Normal Hall-does not detract from the fact that the injury was the
result of an “adcident arising out of and in the course of his
employment.” Again, petitioner’s allegation of. the “negligent manner”
in which Songalia opened the bottle is not sufficient to relieve the
petitioner from liability under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, for the
same requires therefor a “notorious negligence” (section 4, Act
3428, as amended), which has not been pleaded in the aforementioned
communication of petitioner herein.

Referring now to the last issue raised by the latter, the resolution appealed from states;

“* * * the claim for compensation filed by the
claimant against the respondent was transmitted by the Regional Office
No. 3, Manila, to the respondent on January 8, 1960, together with
W.C.C. Forms Nos. 3, 4 & 5 for accomplishment, and return to said
office pursuant to the provisions of Section 37 of the Act; and that,
upon receipt of the claim, the respondent, instead of accomplishing and
submitting said forms, sent to the Regional Office a 1st indoicement
dated January 18, 1960, which read as follows”

‘Respectfully
returned to the Regional Administrator, Department of Labor, R,
Hidalgo-Mendoza St., Manila, with the information that the matter is
being submitted to the Solicitor General for appropriate Action.’

Under these circumstances, it is but logical to
conclude that the Office of the Solicitor General must have been duly
informed of said claim on or before the Regional Office received said
indorsement on January 25, 1960. That being so, and because under
Section 45 of the “Workmen’s Compensation Act, as amended, an employer
is given 10 days from knowledge of the accident within which to
controvert the right to the compensation of the claimant, the
controversion contained in the letter of respondent’s counsel dated
February 26, 1960 was filed at least one month from the time the Office
of the Solicitor General had acquired knowledge of the claim filed by
the claimant.”

The truth of the above facts is not
contested by petitioner herein. What is more, the Solicitor General
admits having received on February 15, 1960, the letter of the Regional
Administrator, dated February 12, 1960, asking the submission of the
requisite report of accident, and that such report was not filed until
February 26, 1960, or eleven (11) days after receipt of said
communication. Thus, it is clear that petitioner has not controverted
Songalia’s claim within the period of ten (10) days prescribed in
section 45 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act. In pursuance of the
provisions thereof, petitioner is deemed, therefore, to have renounced
the right to coritaovert said claim, unless it “submits reasonable,
grounds for the failure to make the necessary reports, on the basis of
which grounds the (Workmen’s Compensation) Commissioner may reinstate’
his right to controvert” the claim. However, petitioner has neither
sought a reinstatement of such right, not submitted “reasonable
grounds” for its “failure to make the necessary report” within the
statutory period. Accordingly, it may not controvert the aforementioned
claim upon the ground, either of prescription of action negligence on
claimant’s part, these defenses being necessarily deemed waived
inconsequence of the constructive renunciation of, the right
aforementioned,

Wherefore, the decision and resolution
appealed from are hereby affirmed, without special pronouncement as to
tosts. It is so ordered.

Bengzon, C.J., Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Barrera, Paredes, Regala, and Makalintal, JJ., concur.