G.R. No. L-47691. August 05, 1981
CONSOLACION F. RELENTE, PETITIONER, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES (BUREAU OF PUBLIC SCHOOLS), WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION AND/OR THE SECRETARY OF LABOR, DEPARTMENT OF L…
AQUINO, J.:
Consolacion F. Relente appealed from the decision of the
Workmen’s Compensation Commission which set aside the award to her of eight
thousand two hundred pesos as compensation for permanent total disability for
labor and as reimbursement of medical expenses and dismissed for lack of merit
her claim for compensation (ZLO WCC Case No. 446).
For thirty-nine years and seven months or until March 27, 1975 Consolacion F. Relente, 60
years old, married and a resident of 24
Canda Street, EBB, Olongapo City, was a public school teacher in that
city. She was paid P11.90 as daily wage during her last
years of service.
On March 18, 1975, Mrs. Relente filed with the Zambales Workmen’s
Compensation Unit a notice of injury or sickness and claim for
compensation. She complained of
“bouts of moderate to severe dizziness, headache and pain at the back of
(her) neck” due to overfatigue in undertaking her teaching job.
She noticed her ailment as early as January, 1971. She was treated by Doctor Eduardo P. Ladao, a
government physician, in his private clinic.
She spent P2,610.00 for that treatment.
She did not file any claim for compensation in 1971 but she orally
notified the authorities of the Bureau of Public Schools in Olongapo City about
her ailment.
In support of her claim for compensation, Mrs. Relente submitted
(a) the report of Doctor Ladao wherein her ailment was diagnosed as
“essential hypertension”; (b) the certification of Doctor Irene Ines
Ladao stating that Mrs. Relente had been under her care since July, 1972 for
“chronic hypertensive vascular disease” and (c) the certification of
the proprietor of Arc Pharmacy in Olongapo City to the effect that for the past
seven years, Mrs. Relente had been buying medicine for hypertension at no less
than one hundred pesos a year.
Mrs. Relente’s case (ZLO WCC Case No. 446) was referred by the
Workmen’s Compensation Unit in Olongapo City to the Director of Public Schools.
On June 25, 1975, the Bureau of Public Schools, through its
acting administrative officer, manifested its “tentative
controversion” of the claim on the ground that the papers submitted by
Mrs. Relente failed to show that the claim fell “within the purview of the
compensatory provision of the Workmen’s Compensation Act”. Mrs. Relente’s case was thereby endorsed to
the city superintendent of schools of Olongapo City for appropriate action.
The Office of the Solicitor General, which had been duly notified
of the case, also referred it to the Director of Public Schools and at the same
time in its letter to the Chief of the Workmen’s Compensation Unit at Olongapo
City requested that official to “register” its controversion of the
claim but without specifying the ground therefor.
On November 14, 1975, the Olongapo City Workmen’s Compensation
Unit awarded to Mrs. Relente the disability compensation already mentioned plus
reimbursement of her medical expenses.
It was assumed that the Bureau of Public Schools “failed to
controvert” the claim and, therefore, it was deemed “to have waived,
renounced and forfeited” whatever defenses it might have against that
claim.
The Office of the Solicitor General and the Department of
Education and Culture were notified of that award on November 24, 1975
(Record, p. 20). The Solicitor General
did not file any motion for reconsideration or petition for review of that
award within the fifteen-day reglementary period from notice of that award.
Then, almost three months later or on February 16, 1976,
the Workmen’s Compensation Commission received the Solicitor General’s petition
for relief from judgment dated December 10, 1975, asking that the
records of the case be elevated to the Commission. The record does not show when the Solicitor
General mailed to the Commission a copy of that petition but the Zambales unit
received it on February 5, 1976 (Record, p. 23).
In that petition, Assistant Solicitor General Alicia V.
Sempio-Diy alleged that she failed to file a timely motion for reconsideration
of that award due to the volume and pressure of work in her office. She argued that Mrs. Relente failed to back
up her claim with substantial evidence considering that her illness, essential
hypertension, is “not an illness per se but merely a symptom
which is not a disability by its nature”.
The Commission, two days from its receipt of that petition or on
February 18, 1976, rendered the decision already mentioned, setting aside the
award and dismissing Mrs. Relente’s claim.
The Commission observed that Mrs. Relente filed her claim on
March 18, 1975 or several days before she actually stopped working on March 27,
1975. It concluded that “the cause
of stoppage was retirement from the service because the period she stopped
working was already fixed at the time she filed the claim which was sometime
before the date she was to stop from work” and that she was qualified to
retire due to “old age” as she was already sixty years old.
It also noted that Mrs. Relente failed to present her service
record and neither was there sufficient proof to form a reasonable conclusion
that she became disabled by reason of an illness during the period of her
employment.
Mrs. Relente received a copy of that decision on January 17, 1978
or two years after its rendition.
Two days later, she notified the Secretary of Labor that she was
appealing to this Court. She filed the
instant petition for review on certiorari on January 26, 1978.
Mrs. Relente avers in her petition that the award of November 14,
1975 could no longer be set aside because it had become final and executory
when the petition to elevate the records for relief from judgment was filed
and, therefore, the Commission had no jurisdiction to review it.
We hold that under the facts of this case the Commission could
no longer set aside the final and executory award in favor of Mrs. Relente.
Section 1, Rule 19 of the Rules of the Commission (69 O.G. 1440)
provides that “a party who is not satisfied with the decision or order on
the merit of the Hearing Officer or Referee may within fifteen (15) days from
receipt of notice thereof file with the Hearing Officer or Referee having control
of the case a petition for review or motion for the reconsideration of said
decision or order”.
That rule is based on section 48 of the Workmen’s Compensation
Act which provides that the decisions, orders and resolutions of referees in
the regional offices “shall become final fifteen days from receipt thereof
by the parties, unless appealed to the Commission within said period”.
In this case, the Department of Education and Culture and the
Solicitor General’s Office were notified of the award on November 24,
1975. Within the fifteen-day
reglementary period expiring on December 9, 1975, the Solicitor General
could file a motion for reconsideration or a petition for review. Since he failed to do so, the award became
final and executory. The Commission had
no appellate jurisdiction to review it (Ramos vs. Republic, L-41949, February
27, 1976, 69 SCRA 576; Robles vs. Workmen’s Compensation Commission, L-43187,
November 29, 1977, 80 SCRA 466; Villaflor vs. Republic, L-45017, June 25, 1980,
98 SCRA 383).
The Solicitor General contends that his petition for relief from
judgment was filed within the period prescribed in section 3, Rule 22 of the
Rules of the Commission. That section
provides that the petition should be received by the Commission “within
thirty (30) days after the petitioner learns of the decision, award, or order
or other proceedings sought to be set aside and not more than three (3) months
after such decision or award was entered or such proceedings were taken”.
Granting that said petition was timely filed on December 12,
1975 (which allegation in respondents’ brief is not borne out by the record),
still, it was not based on any valid ground.
Section 1, Rule 22 of the Commission Rules provides that “when a
decision, award, or order on the merit has been rendered or issued by the Chief
of the Unit or Hearing Officer or Referee in a case, and the aggrieved party
thereto by fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence has been unjustly
deprived of a hearing therein or has been prevented from taking an appeal, he
may file a petition with the Commission praying that the records be elevated to
said Commission for review and the questioned decision, award or order be set
aside”.
Affidavits showing the “fraud, accident, mistake or
excusable negligence relied upon and the facts constituting the petitioner’s
good and substantial cause of action or defense, as the case may be”, must
be attached to the petition (Sec. 3, Rule 22).
Respondent bureau did not comply with that requirement. All it did was to allege that “due to
the volume and pressure of work” of the Solicitor assigned to the case,
“the decision in question was not acted upon immediately or within the
period required for filing a Motion for Reconsideration” (Record, pp.
22-23).
However, mere pressure of work is not a valid excuse for not
filing a motion for reconsideration of a decision of a labor referee (Ranada
vs. Workmen’s Compensation Commission, L-43709, September 30, 1976, 73 SCRA
263; Robles vs. Workmen’s Compensation Commission, supra; Ligason vs.
Workmen’s Compensation Commission, L-43691, September 30, 1978, 85 SCRA 459).
“Volume and pressure of work” is not the excusable
negligence or mistake envisaged in Rule 22 of the Commission Rules because
relief from judgment is an “exceptional and equitable remedy” (Vitug
vs. Republic, L-44890, February 28, 1977, 75 SCRA 436).
There is no merit in the Commission’s conclusion that there was
insufficient evidence that Mrs. Relente’s disability was caused by an illness
contracted during the period she was employed by the Bureau of Public
Schools. Doctor Ladao, in the
physician’s report of sickness or accident dated March 14, 1975, found that
Mrs. Relente acquired her illness in “the course of her teaching
profession”. That report is
evidence substantiating Mrs. Relente’s claim for workmen’s compensation
(Gacula vs. Republic, L-45080, November 21, 1979, 94 SCRA 443, 449).
Moreover, whatever defenses the respondent bureau might have
interposed were barred by its failure to validly controvert petitioner’s
claim. Although it manifested that it
was controverting the claim, that manifestation or “registration” of
controversion was not made in the proper form prescribed by the rules of the
Commission. The Assistant Solicitor
General in his letter dated July 16, 1975, merely requested the Chief of the
Workmen’s Compensation Unit in Olongapo City to “register” his
controversion of Mrs. Relente’s claim without specifying the grounds thereof.
“A notice of controversion which does not specify in clear
terms the grounds or reasons for controversion is defective and, even if filed
seasonably, shall not have the effect of a valid controversion” (Sec. 2,
Rule 10).
As there was no valid controversion, the Director of Public
Schools waived the defense that Mrs. Relente’s illness is not compensable
because it is not work-connected nor work-aggravated (Despe vs. Workmen’s
Compensation Commission, L-42828, February 28, 1977, 75 SCRA 350).
WHEREFORE, the decision of the respondent Commission is
hereby reversed and set aside. The 1975
award of the Zambales Workmen’s Compensation Unit in favor of Consolacion F.
Relente is affirmed. No costs.
SO ORDERED.
Barredo, (Chairman), Concepcion, Jr., Fernandez, and De Castro, JJ., concur.
Abad Santos, J., on leave.