WILFREDO D. BAEL, FOR AND IN BEHALF OF THE MINORS:  AGNES, BALTAZAR, AND CYNTHIA, ALL SURNAMED BAEL, PETITIONERS, VS. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPI…

Petition for review^[1]
of the decision of the respondent Workmen’s Compensation Commission denying the
award of death compensation benefits made by the Acting Referee, Regional
Office No. 4, Workmen’s Compensation Unit of the Department of Labor in favor
of petitioners.

Lourdes Vda. de Bael was employed by the
respondent Bureau of Public Schools as an elementary grade school teacher
assigned at Camp Hamac Elementary School,
Dipolog City,
with a weekly salary of P71.50.  On or
about July 26, 1975 at
about 5:20 o’clock in the afternoon
on her way home from her place of work she met a vehicular accident.  The jeepney she was
riding on rammed against an electric post and turned turtle pinning her to
death.  At the time of her death she left
her husband, Wilfredo D. Bael,
and three minor children, Agnes, Baltazar and
Cynthia, all surnamed Bael, the petitioners herein.

In due time petitioners filed a Notice of Death and Claim for
Compensation with the respondent Bureau of Public Schools.  On April
22, 1975, respondent through the Solicitor General, filed a motion
to dismiss the claim on the ground that the Office of the Solicitor General as
counsel of the Republic of the Philippines,
has not been furnished with the copy of the supposed notice of claim.  On May
13, 1975, the Dipolog City Sub-Regional
Office Hearing Officer denied the motion to dismiss the claim on the ground
that the respondent has failed to controvert the claim and has thus waived all
available defenses including the right to notice.

Accordingly, the Acting Referee rendered its decision the dispositive portion of which reads as follows:

“AWARD THEREFORE is hereto entered in favor of the above claimant
and against the respondent, ordering the latter to pay the following:

1.     
To the claimant thru this Office, the total sum
of SIX THOUSAND AND TWO HUNDRED (P6,200.00) pursuant to Section 8 of the Act;
and

2.     
To the Commission thru this Office, the sum of
P61.00 under Section 55 of the Act.

The shares of the minors which is one-half (1/2) of the amount of
P6,000.00 shall be deposited in a bank nearest the residence of the said minors
pursuant to the Commission Rules.

SO ORDERED.”

Upon review of the records of the case by
the respondent Workmen’s Compensation Commission, the latter set aside the
order of the Hearing Officer of Dipolog City
Sub-Regional Office and denied the claim of petitioners.

Not satisfied with the decision of the respondent Workmen’s
Compensation Commission, petitioners have come to this Court on a petition for
review raising the following issues:

1.     
WHETHER LACK OF REPORT OF ACCIDENT AND/OR
CONTROVERSION OF THE CLAIM IPSO FACTO RENDERS THE EMPLOYER LIABLE.

2.     
WHETHER THE DEATH OF AN EMPLOYEE OCCURRING WHILE
ON HIS OR HER WAY HOME FROM WORK, OUTSIDE THE EMPLOYER’S PREMISES ALSO IPSO
FACTO ENTITLES THE FORMER TO COMPENSATION.

The main argument of respondent is that it is entitled to a copy
of the Notice of Death and Claim for Compensation which must be transmitted to
the Office of the Solicitor General in its capacity as counsel for the National
Government, even in cases where the claim is uncontroverted.  Respondent invokes Commission Circular dated January 22, 1973 which provides:

“10. Transmittal
of Claim to Solicitor General. – In all claims for compensation against the
Republic of the Philippines,
the Chief of the Work­men’s Compensation Section or Unit shall see to it that a
copy of the notice and claim for compensation is transmitted to the Office of
the Solicitor General in its capacity as counsel for the National Government
even if the claim is uncontroverted.  Violation of this mandatory requirement may
subject the officer to administrative action as hinted in the case of Republic
of the Philippines
(Department of Justice) vs. WCC & Cleofe R. Arzaña G.R. No. 29019, May 18, 1972.”

It is explicit from the foregoing
provision that what is mandatorily required of the
Chief of the Workmen’s Compensation Section or Unit is to see to it that a copy
of the Notice and Claim for Compensation is transmitted to the Office of the
Solicitor General in its capacity as counsel for the National Government.  It does not require the claimant to transmit
a copy of the Notice and Claim for Compensation to the Office of the Solicitor
General.  This is the duty of the head of
office or unit.  Since the petitioners
have already filed their Notice of Death and Claim for Compensation with the
proper Workmen’s Compensation Unit, there is already a substantial compliance
of due process on the part of the petitioners. 
It is the fault of the head of the office if it does not transmit a copy
thereof to the Office of the Solicitor General. 
As held in Republic (Department of Justice) vs. WCC & Arzaña, G.R. No. 29019, May 18, 1972, a disregard by the
office concerned of the provisions of law governing the transmittal of claims
against the Government should not prejudice the claimant, worker or employee
who has no control over the said official and whom the Workmen’s Compensation Act
so clearly aims to protect.  The
Republic’s remedy is to proceed administratively against the officer concerned
for violation of the regulations involved.

Besides, the records show that respondent Bureau of Public
Schools has failed to report about the death of Lourdes Vda.
de Bael to the nearest Regional Labor Office of the
Department of Labor.  Neither has it controverted the claim within the reglementary
period provided under Section 45 of the Act and of Memorandum Circular No. 210
issued by the Office of the President on October 29, 1968. 
As a consequence, the Hearing Officer declared the claim of petitioners uncontroverted and made the corresponding award in favor of
respondents.

We are not prepared to hold the Hearing Officer to have abused
his discretion in making such award.  In
our jurisdiction failure to controvert a claim within the prescribed period
amounts to a waiver of the right to controvert and a renunciation of all
defenses.^[2]
This means that all non-jurisdictional defenses, such as non-compensability of
the illness, prescription, etc. are barred^[3]
and such legal effect does not violate the requirements of due process.^[4]
If on this ground alone, the instant petition should be granted.

But even going into the merits of the petition, We are inclined
to grant the same.  The injury of the
deceased that resulted in her untimely death comes within the purview of the
“going to and coming from rule”.

In the case before Us, the circumstances
attending the death of the deceased constrain Us, to hold that the accident of
the deceased comes within the “going to and coining from rule”.  The records show that right after her work at
school she immediately proceeded to go home by taking a jeepney.  In going home, she has still other school
work to do, like preparing, lesson plan for the next day, correcting papers and
preparing school projects.  When she
therefore took a jeepney on her way home, she was
merely commuting to another place to continue with her work.  Her taking the ride in that fatal vehicle can
be treated as a necessary incident to her school work.  The very nature of the work of the deceased,
the time required of her after class hours created that special circumstances
that qualify her heirs to the benefits arising from her death.  In one case, the claimant started working
with the Bureau of Public Schools as a classroom teacher as early as July 8,
1953, assigned in one of the barrios of the town of Enrile,
province of Cagayan. 
In going to her place of work, she had to cross the Cagayan River,
where she had to board a banca to ferry her to the
other side.  In one of her trips while
alighting from the banca, she slipped causing her to
fall and her head bumped on the side of the boat, resulting in the pains and
contusions on the head.  Here the Supreme
Court held that the head injury that induced the tumor which caused her death
was incurred in line of duty.^[5]
Similarly, in the instant case, We can consider the death of the deceased as
having occurred in connection with her duty.

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the judgment of the respondent
Commission, is hereby reversed and sat aside and the original award of the
Acting Referee, Regional Office No. 4, Workmen’s Compensation Unit, revived and
reinstated.  Without pronouncement is to
costs.

SO ORDERED.

Teehankee, (Chairman), Makasiar, Muñoz Palma, and Concepcion, Jr.,
JJ., concur.

^[1]
Treated as Special Civil Action as per Resolution of this Court dated March 22, 1976.

^[2]
Development Bank of the Philippines
vs. Work­men’s Compensation Commission, 49 SCRA 365; Philippine Graphic
Arts, Inc. vs. Mariano, 53 SCRA 409.

^[3] Magalona vs. Workmen’s Compensation Commission,
L-21849, Dec. 11, 1967; See also National De­velopment Corp. vs. WCC,
L-20504, March 31, 1965; Industrial Textile Manufacturing Co. of the
Philippines vs. Florzo & WCC, L-21969,
Aug. 31, 1966.

^[4]
Guardian Security and Investigation Agency vs. Workmen’s Compensation
Commission, L-26875, July 31, 1970,
34 SCRA 29; Camotes Shipping Corporation vs. Otadoy, No. L-27699, October 24, 1970, 35 SCRA 456; Cited in SCRA Quick Index,
Vol. 2, pages 2180-2181.

^[5] Uy vs. WCC, et al., G.R. No. L-38096, May 14, 1975.