LUZON STEVEDORING CO., INC., PETITIONER VS. THE HONORABLE CESAREO DE LEON, COMMISSIONER OF THE WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ATANACIO A. MARDO, REFEREE, WORKMEN’S COMPENSAT…

This is a petition for certiorari seeking to set aside the orders of
respondent Commissioner dated September 11, 1954 and September 22, 1954 entered
in Case No. 18045 of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission and to have and order
issue directing respondent Atanacio A. Mardo to refer the case to said
Commission for review.

Teresa Javier Vda. de Gonzales, et al., filed on April 22, 1952 with the
Workmen’s Compensation Commission a claim for compensation by reason of the
death of one Maximino Gonzales, who was an employee of respondent Luzon
Stevedoring Co., Inc. (Case No. 18045). The company, answering the claim, filed
a motion to dismiss on the ground that the right of action of the claimants had
already prescribed. This motion was denied, and, after hearing, the referee,
Atanacio A. Mardo, rendered decision on February 23, 1954 ordering the company
to pay the sums of P1,560 and P60, respectively, as compensation benefits and
burial expenses to minors Antonio, Purification, Leonardo and Natividad,
children of the deceased, but dismissing the case with regard to the claim of
the widow and the children who had attained their age of majority before the
filing of the claim with the Commission. On March 9, 1954, the company filed a
motion for reconsideration insisting on its claim that the right of action of
claimants had already prescribed, but the referee denied the motion in an order
issued on April 1, 1954 wherein he neither amended nor modified his former
decision.

On April 17, 1954, the company filed with the Supreme Court a petition to
review by way of certiorari the decision of the referee, which petition was
dismissed on the ground that “the decision involved is merely that of the
referee, and under section 46 of Republic Act No. 772, appeal to the Supreme
Court should be from the decision of the Commissioner.” On May 19, 1954,
following the suggestion of this Court, the company filed with the Workmen’s
Compensation Commission a motion praying that the referee be ordered to refer
the case to said Commission for review inasmuch as said referee in denying said
motion for reconsideration neither amended nor modified his former decision.
This motion was denied in an order entered on September 11, 1954 on the ground
that the decision sought to be reviewed had already become final. Its motion for
reconsideration having been denied, the company interposed the present petition
for certiorari.

The question to be determined is whether the decision of the referee dated
February 23, 1954 had already become final when petitioner filed its motion
praying that the case be referred to the Workmen’s Compensation Commission for
review under section 49, Act No. 3428,. as amended by Republic Act No. 772.

Said Section 49 provides in part:

“Any party in interest who is dissatisfied with the order entered by the
referee may petition to review the same and the referee may reopen said case, or
may amend or modify said order, and such t mended or modified order shall be a
final award unless objection be made thereto by petition for review. In case
said referee does not amend or modify said order, he shall refer the entire case
to the Commissioner, who shall thereupon review the entire record in said case,
and, in his discretion, may take or order the taking of additional testimony,
and shall make his findings of facts and enter his award thereon. The award of
the Commissioner shall be final unless a petition to review same shall be filed
by an interested party. Every petition for review shall be in writing and shall
specify in detail the particular errors and objections. Such petition must be
filed within fifteen days after the entry of any referee’s order or award of the
Commissioner unless further time is granted by the referee or the Commissioner
within said fifteen days. All parties in interest shall be given due notice of
the entry of any referee’s order or any award of the Commissioner, and said
period of fifteen days shall begin to run only after such notice, and the
mailing of a copy of said order or award addressed to the last known address of
any party in interest shall be sufficient notice.”

It is clear from the above provision that any party in interest who is
dissatisfied with the order issued by the referee may petition to
review the same and the referee may re-open said case, or may amend or
modify said order, and such amended or modified order shall be a final award
unless objection be made thereto by petition for review. In case said referee
does not amend or modify said order, he shall refer the entire case to the
Commissioner, who shall thereupon review the entire record of said case. The
award of the Commissioner shall be final unless a petition to review is filed by
an interested party. The law also provides that every petition for review shall
be in writing and must be filed within 15 days after the entry of the referee’s
order or award of the Commissioner unless further time is granted.

In the instant case, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the
order of the referee granting compensation benefits to some of the claimants
well within the period of 15 days after its entry, and the referee did not amend
nor modify his original decision but merely reiterated it. Such being the case,
the duty of the referee was to refer the entire case to the Commissioner in
order that it may review the case as provided for by law. The referee failed to
comply with this duty which motivated the petitioner to file a motion with the
Commission in order that such duty may be performed. Respondent Commission
denied said motion on the mistaken belief that the decision of the referee had
already become final. This is an error which amounts to an abuse of
discretion.

It is true that the petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration instead of
a petition for review as required by the law, but in our opinion this is a mere
technical error which cannot affect the nature of the motion for reconsideration
filed by petitioner for, in effect, its purpose is to seek a review of the
decision of the referee. It is therefore evident that said decision had not yet
become final when petitioner filed its motion to refer the entire case to the
Commission and, hence, respondent Commissioner committed an abuse of discretion
when he denied said motion.

Wherefore, petition is granted. Respondent Commissioner is hereby directed to
have the entire record of the case referred to the Commission for review as
provided for by law, without pronouncement as to costs.

Pablo, Acting C. J., Bengzon, Montemayor, Reyes, A., Concepcion, and
Reyes, J. B. L., JJ., concur.

Petition granted.