SURIGAO CONSOLIDATED MINING COMPANY INC., PETITIONER, VS. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION AND CLETO TUIBUEN, RESPONDENTS.

This is a petition for review of the decision of the Workmen’s Compensation
Commission, rendered on March 16, 1966, in the case of “Cleto Tuibuen vs. Surigao
Consolidated Mining Co., Inc.,” RO4-WC-Case No. 3372, and the resolution of said Commission en
banc, dated April 15, 1966,
denying the motion for
reconsideration of said decision and at the same time affirming the decision.

Respondent Cleto Tuibuen started to work for
peti­tioner Surigao Consolidated Mining Company, Inc.
on April 7, 1952
as rustler jigger in its mines at Siena, Mainit, Surtgao, earning P4.75 a day and working 7
days week.  On March 6,
1954, while
respondent was going down the stope in the course of
his job inside tunnel North S-555, in
D-553-N, a blast went off just above his head and he was hit by a wooden splinter at
his right clavicle.  The accident
was found to he due to the
failure of petitioner’s repairmen to guard all possible exits when blasting work was in progress.  Petitioner’s safety engineer T. B. Fuderanan knew of the accident.  Respondent was treated by Dr. Isidro Risma at the Grace Christian Clinic where he was later on
found suffering from impaired hearing as a result of the said accident.  On March 11, 12 and 29, and on May 10 and 11,
1954, respondent was treated at the Grace Christian Clinic.  Despite respondent’s condition, petitioner
allowed him to continue working until May
18, 1954 when he was laid off due to his impaired hearing caused by
the accident of March 6, 1954.  Again on July 26 and November 23, 1954, respondent was treated at the
Grace Christian Clinic.

On November 23, 1960, respondent filed
a claim for compensation with the Department of Labor Regional Of­fice at Davao City,
and later on he transferred his claim to
the Regional Office at Cagayan de Oro
City.  The petitioner answered and controverted the claim on February 3, 1961, invoking the provisions of Section 24 of
Act 3428, as amended.  It was agreed by
the parties that the case be refiled in Davao City,
but was dismissed on January 24, 1964
without prejudice to filing another claim for compensation.  Because respondent Tuibuen
transferred his residence to Manila
he filed a claim for
compensation with Regional Office No. 4 at Manila
on May 13, 1964.  On June
3, 1964, petitioner filed an answer denying the material
allegations of the claim and averring at the same time that the claim was filed
out of time and had long prescribed.

On July 14, 1964,
at the hearing of the case,
before the evidence of the parties could be presented, counsel for the
petitioner moved for the dismissal of the
claim upon the ground that the claim states no cause of action and that the
claim had prescribed.  The acting referee
required counsel to file a formal motion to dismiss.  On August
18, 1964, the acting referee entered an order dismissing the claim. 
Counsel for respondent then filed a
motion for reconsideration, which motion the acting referee denied in an
order dated September 24, 1964.  Thus, pursuant
to the rules of the Commission the entire record of the case was
elevated to the respondent Commission for review.

On March 16, 1966, the
Chairman of the Commissions Hon. N. Baens del
Rosario, rendered a decision reversing the order of the acting referee and
ordering the pe­titioner to pay respondent P2,243.70 as compensation un­der Section 17 of Act 3428, as
amended, P224.37 as attorney’s fees, and P23.00 as fees under Section 55 of Act
3428, as amended.  On April 11, 1966, petitioner filed a
motion for reconsideration of the aforementioned decision before the Commission
en banc, which motion was denied
by resolution dated April 15, 1966
of said Commission en banc.

On May 24, 1966, petitioner filed the
instant petition before this Court.

The decisive issue which
has to be resolved in this case is whether or not respondent’s claim had been
timely filed as provided for by law.  The
resolution of this issue will determine the validity or invalidity of the
decision of respondent Workmen’s Compensation Commission of March 16, 1966
which reversed the order of the acting referee dismissing the claim and which
granted compensation to respondent.

Petitioner’s main
contention is that respondent’s claim was filed six years too late, and
that respondent did not give notice of the accident or injury to petitioner as
required in Section 24 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act.  Petitioner insists that compliance with the
requirements mentioned in Section 24 of the Act is mandatory, and is essential
to the right of the claimant to bring an action for compensation.

It is the finding of
respondent Workmen’s Compensation Commission, however, that the delay in
the filing of respondent’s claim
is excusable, although filed 6 years after the accident, because his employer –
petitioner herein – failed to file its controversion
to the employee’s right to compensation within the time fixed by Section 45 of
the Workmen’s Compensation Act.  Respondent
Workmen’s Compensation Commission found that petitioner filed its controversion on February
2, 1961 despite its constructive knowledge of the accident thru its
safety engineer, which took place on March
6, 1954.

This Court has ruled, in numerous cases, that failure on the part
of the employee to comply with
the requirements of Section 24 of Act 3428 – that is, the giving of notice of
injury and the filing of claim within the time prescribed therein is
non-jurisdictional.  This Court has also
ruled that failure or delay in giving notice, as provided in Section 24 of the
law is not a bar to a claim for compensation if it is shown that the employer,
his agent or representative, has knowledge of the injury, sickness, or death,
or that the employer did not
suffer by such delay or failure; and that even if a claim for compensation is
filed beyond the period prescribed in Section 24 of Act 3428 if it is shown
that the employee has not controverted the employee’s right to compensation, either
on or before the fourteenth day of disability or within ten days after he has
knowledge of the accident, the Workmen’s Compensation Commission can proceed to
determine and decide the claim for compensation.^[1]

The record shows, and respondent Workmen’s Compen­sation
Commission has so found, that petitioner, since March 6, 1954, had knowledge of
the accident suffered by respondent and
inspite of this, petitioner allowed res­pondent, to continue working and that
petitioner never bothered to comply with the law by serving, notice of the injury
suffered by respondent, as required under Section 37 of Act 3428, as
amended.  Respondent Workmen’s Compensation Commission also found that
respondent Tuibuen continued working for the
petitioner until May 18, 1954,
when he was laid off due to his impaired hearing caused
by the accident of March 6, 1954. 
Petitioner, therefore, had the opportunity to file a notice of controversion as required by Section 45 of the Act, and
this it did not do.  It is clear
that petitioner failed to comply with the law by its failure to file a timely controversion, and petitioner is thereby deemed to have
renounced its right to controvert
the compensability of respondent’s disability, and it cannot now contest
respondent’s claim upon the ground that respondent failed to comply with the
requirements of Section 24 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act.

The fact that the claim
for compensation was filed six years after the accident or disability is not
a bar to the action of the respondent to recover compensation.  This Court has ruled that the liability of an
employer to pay compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act is an
obligation created by law, and under paragraph (2) of Article 1144 of the Civil Code of the Philippines the action to enforce
this obligation can be brought within ten years from the time the right of
action accrues.^[2]

Such being the case, the
Workmen’s Compensation Commission was justified in making the corresponding
award without previous notice
and hearing.^[3] We are satisfied that the factual findings of respondent
Workmen’s Compensation Commission in its decision are supported by substantial
evidence, as shown in the record.

WHEREFORE, the petition for review is dismissed; and
the decision and resolution of the respondent Workmen’s Compensation Commission
appealed from should be, as they are hereby, affirmed with costs against petitioner Surigao Consolidated
Mining Company, Inc.

SO ORDERED.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Sanchez,
Castro, and Angeles, JJ., concur.

^[1]
Manila Railroad Company v.
Workmen’s Compensation Commission, et
al., L-21902, August 10, 1967; National Development Co. v. Roberta Rongavilla, et al., L-21963, August 30, 1967.  See
cases cited in the decisions.

^[2]
National Development Company v. Roberta Rongavillo et
al., L-21963, August 30, 1967.

^[3] Aboitiz Shipping
Corporation v. Demetria Oqueria, et al., L-20998, August 31, 1965.