“Y” SHIPPING CORPORATION, PETITIONER AND APPELLANT, VS. AGUSTIN BORCELIS, ET AL., RESPONDENTS AND APPELLEES.

The
present appeal stems from a claim for compensation filed by Agustin
Borcelis on March 25, 1957 against “Y” Shipping Corporation before the
Workmen’s Compensation Commission for certain injuries suffered by him
while in the employ of the latter as a truck driver. The claim not
having been controverted, an award was made by the regional
administrator ordering the corporation to pay Borcelis the sum of
P742.81. Within the reglementary period, however, the corporation filed
a petition for review, which was denied by the regional administrator,
causing the elevation of the case for review to an associate
commissioner. In due time, the latter affirmed the award, whereupon the
corporation filed a motion for reconsideration before the Commission en banc;
and when the same was denied, it brought the matter before this Court
on a petition for certiorari. This petition was dismissed for lack of
merit.

On October 13, 1959, pursuant to paragraph 12, article
III, of Reorganization Plan No. 20-A, and section 1, Rule II of the
Workmen’s Compensation Commission, Commissioner Jose Sanchez issued a
writ of execution commanding the enforcement of the award. On December
27, 1959, the corporation filed an urgent motion for the recall of the
writ on the ground that the Workmen’s Compensation Commission has no
such power, which motion was denied. And when his move to have the
order reconsidered failed, the corporation instituted the present
petition for prohibition before the Court of First Instance of Manila
(Case No. 41965). Contending that the Commission has the power to issue
the disputed writ of execution under section 1, Rule 11, of the
Workmen’s Compensation Commission, in relation to paragraph 12, article
III, of Re-organization Plan No. 20-A, respondents pleaded for the
dismissal of the petition. The court found this plea meritorious, and
dismissed the petition. Hence, the present appeal.

The only
issue raised in this appeal is whether the Workmen’s Compensation
Commission can issue a writ of execution to enforce its decisions
pursuant to the provisions of Reorganization Plan No. 20-A and the
rules and regulations promulgated to implement the same, which issue is
now of no moment considering our recent decision in the case of
Pastoral vs. The Commissioners of the Workmen’s Compensation
Commission, et al., 112 Phil., 742; wherein we said in part:

“The
above legal provisions are cigar and unequivocal, both in their
language and purpose. The interested party may file in any court of
record in the jurisdiction of which the accident occurred, a certified
copy of the referee’s or Commissioner’s final decision and the Court
will issue a judgment based upon said decision of the referee or
Commissioner; and it is this judgment of the court that can
be enforced by a writ of execution to be issued by the said court,
considering Sec. 8, Rule 39, of the Rules of Court.

*          *          *          *          *          *          *

“It
would appear evident, therefore, that the powers given to the W.C.C. by
the Reorganization Acts, cannot validly include the power to amend Sec.
51 of the Workmen’s Compensation Law, heretofore quoted, for to do so
would be to diminish the Jurisdiction and the judicial power and
functions vested by law on the courts of record, by virtue of said
section, to issue or order a writ of execution by the promulgation of a
judgment, which power or authority the Workmen’s Compensation
Commission never had, before the Reorganization Acts had been passed.
Where the inquiry to be made involves questions of law as well as
facts, where it affects a legal right, and where the decision may
result in the terminating or destroying that right, the powers to be
exercised and the duties to be discharged are essentially judicial (11
Am. Jur. 904); and being judicial, such powers are granted to or vested
upon a court or judicial tribunal (Rhode Island vs. Mass. 37 U.S. [12
Peters] 657, 738 L. ed. [U.S.] 1233, 1266.) and there is no gainsaying
the fact, that under this concept, an order for the execution of a
decision or award of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission is
essentially a judicial power or function of the court.”

In
the light of the foregoing decision, it is clear that the writ of
execution issued by the Workmen’s Compensation Commission which is the
subject of the present appeal is null and void.

Wherefore, the order appealed from is set aside, without costs.

Bengzon, C. J., Padilla, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L., Paredes, and De Leon, JJ., concur.