ABOITIZ SHIPPING CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. DEMETRIA OQUERIA, AND THE MINORS MEMORACION, ELICITA, MAXIMO AND MARIETA, ALL SURNAMED BUEN, REPRESENTED BY THEIR MOTHER, THE RESPO…

Aboitiz Shipping versus Oqueria

The Case

This is a petition for review by certiorari brought by Aboitiz Shipping Corporation against Demetria Oqueria and her minor children, all surnamed Buen, represented by their mother. The action concerns a claim for workmen's compensation arising from the death of Sofronio Buen, a seaman employed by the petitioner, who was lost at sea during a voyage. The case matters because it teaches the consequences of an employer's failure to file the required Employer's Report of Accident within the statutory period, and how that failure operates as a renunciation of the right to controvert a compensation claim.

Procedural History

The Regional Labor Administrator, finding the claim uncontroverted, issued an award in favor of the respondents on February 20, 1962, ordering the petitioner to pay compensation and a fee to the Workmen's Compensation Commission. The petitioner filed a motion to set aside the award, which the Regional Labor Administrator denied on May 14, 1962. The petitioner then moved for review of the award and the denial order. The Chairman of the Workmen's Compensation Commission denied the petition for review on January 14, 1963, on the ground that the motion to set aside had been filed out of time. The petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied by the Commission en banc on February 19, 1963. The petitioner then elevated the matter to the Supreme Court by appeal by certiorari.

Facts

Sofronio Buen was a seaman aboard the vessel M/V Carmen, owned by the petitioner. On October 14, 1961, while the vessel was navigating the high seas near Kaubian Island on a voyage from Cebu City to Surigao del Norte, Buen disappeared. A watchman discovered the disappearance that same day. After a search for his body proved futile, the Master of the vessel filed a marine protest at Tandag, Surigao del Sur.

The petitioner was aware of the disappearance from October 14, 1961, yet it did not file the Employer's Report of Accident within the required period. On January 3, 1962, Regional Office Number Eight sent the petitioner forms to be accomplished. The petitioner returned the accomplished forms on January 29, 1962, and filed its Employer's Report of Accident and Supplementary Report of Accident on January 30, 1962, or 108 days after the accident. It offered no justification or explanation for the delay.

On February 20, 1962, the Regional Labor Administrator, treating the claim as uncontroverted, made an award of 3,806.40 pesos in favor of the respondents, plus 39 pesos as fee to the Commission. The petitioner's subsequent motion to set aside the award was denied, and its petition for review was likewise denied as filed out of time.

Issues

• Whether or not the Workmen's Compensation Commission erred in holding that the petitioner had not controverted the claim for compensation.
• Whether or not the award and the order denying the motion to set it aside are illegal and invalid for having been made without previous notice and hearing.
• Whether or not the Commission erred in presuming the death of Buen from his disappearance.
• Whether or not the filing of the Employer's Report of Accident on January 30, 1962 satisfied the requirements of the rules of the Commission.
• Whether or not the service of the award upon the petitioner's manager, instead of its counsel, was improper.
• Whether or not the reglementary period to seek review commenced from receipt of notice by the petitioner's counsel.
• Whether or not the award had already become final and executory.

Applicable Provisions

The second paragraph of Section 45 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, as amended, provides:

In case the employer fails to make the report required by this section within the time herein provided, he shall be deemed to have renounced his right to controvert the claim for compensation, unless he submits reasonable grounds for the failure to make the necessary reports, on the basis of which the commissioner may reinstate his right to controvert the claim.

This provision is the core of the case, because the petitioner's failure to file its report on time is deemed a renunciation of its right to controvert the claim.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the petitioner had indeed failed to controvert the claim. It was aware of the disappearance since October 14, 1961, yet filed its report only on January 30, 1962, 108 days later, without offering any justification or explanation. Under the second paragraph of Section 45, the petitioner is deemed to have renounced its right to controvert the claim. Consequently, the Regional Labor Administrator was justified in making the award without previous notice and hearing, resolving the second issue against the petitioner.

On the third issue, the Court held that the death of Buen was properly deduced from the circumstances: he disappeared from the vessel on the high seas, he must have jumped or fallen overboard, he was under the influence of liquor, his body could not be found despite diligent search, a marine protest was filed, and his whereabouts remained unknown almost four years later.

On the fourth issue, the Court found that the late filing of the report did not satisfy the requirements, since no reasonable grounds were submitted for the delay. On the fifth and sixth issues, the Court held that notice of the award was properly served on the petitioner itself, because its counsel had not yet entered his appearance at the time of the award. The motion to set aside, filed on March 16, 1962, was therefore filed after the expiration of the fifteen-day period prescribed by the rules of the Commission. On the seventh issue, the Court concluded that the award had become final and executory.

Doctrine

An employer who fails to file the required Employer's Report of Accident within the statutory period is deemed to have renounced the right to controvert the claim for compensation, unless it submits reasonable grounds for the failure. The failure to controvert operates as an admission of the validity of the claim, justifying an award without previous notice and hearing. The death of a seaman may be presumed from his disappearance under circumstances unfavorable to survival, such as disappearance on the high seas while under the influence of liquor, with the body unrecovered despite diligent search. Notice of an award is properly served on the employer itself where its counsel has not yet entered an appearance.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the order and resolution appealed from, with costs against the petitioner Aboitiz Shipping Corporation.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing is that failure to file the Employer's Report of Accident within the statutory period is deemed a renunciation of the right to controvert the claim, unless reasonable grounds for the delay are shown. Examiners like to use this case to test the consequences of an employer's procedural default in workmen's compensation claims and the presumption of death from disappearance at sea.