CARMEN D. DE CRUZ, SERAFIN, MARCELO, ROSALINA, CARMENCITA, MARIANO, GERMAN AND ROGELIO, ALL SURNAMED CRUZ, PETITIONERS, VS. EMILIANA MENDOZA, FOR HERSELF AND IN REPRESENTATION O…

Emiliana Mendoza and her children Encarnacion and
Lucila, were the wife and children, respectively, of Ernesto
Belleza, employed with the M/S Cinderella, a ferry boat,
registered in the name of Marcelo E. Cruz, father of petitioners herein. On August 30, 1954, Marcelo E. Cruz died
and his estate was the subject of Special Proceeding No.
2068 of the CFI of Rizal, presented on October 13, 1954.
On November 29, 1954, the intestate court issued an Order,
requiring claimants of the estate to file notices of claim
within six (6) months from the first publication. The
Order was published in the Manila Times on December 2,
9 and 16, 1954.

On March 22, 1955, while the estate was in the process
of liquidation, but before its termination on March 13,
1961, and the approval of the Project of Partition, Ernesto
Belleza was killed. Notice of claim for compensation was
presented on December 15, 1959.

On January 25, I960, respondents (Bellezas), filed with
the Department of Labor, San Pablo Local Office, Region
No. 8, a complaint (RO 3 SP-WC Case No. 57), against
Carmen Vda. de Cruz, wife of Marcelo E. Cruz, the pertinent allegations of which recite—

“4. That on March 22, 1955, and for sometime prior to this date,
the deceased Ernesto Belleza was employed in respondent’s M/S
‘Cinderella’ with the work of issuing tickets and collecting fares
from passengers and also doing other odd jobs for the interest of
said vessel of the respondent at Calapan, Oriental Mindoro, and
received for his services P120.00 monthly more or less;

5. That on March 22,1955, at around 5:30 o’clock in the afternoon,
while the deceased Ernesto Belleza was trying to untie a ship cable so
that the M/S ‘Cinderella.’ of the respondent may be moored at an
advantageous place in the Calapan Wharf, a trouble arose between Carlos
Ronquillo of the M/S ‘BARRON’ and Rufo Marasigan, Manager of the M/S
‘CINDERELLA’ and M/S ‘AMBASSADOR’ at Calapan, Oriental Mindoro, and, in
firing made by Carlos Ronquillo of his .45 Caliber pistol, Ernesto
Belleza was hit three (3) times and wounded, as a result of which he
(Ernesto Belleza) died at around 9:30 o’clock in the evening of the
same date at Calapan, Oriental Mindoro;

*             *              *                *             *              *

8. That the respondent spent for the
burial expenses of the deceased Ernesto Belleza and has paid to the
claimant Emiliana Mendoza and her aforementioned minor legitimate
children the sum of P1,230.00, thereby leaving unpaid P1,650.80 as
balance of their compensation.” 

*             *              *                *             *              *

An Answer to the above complaint,
presented on February 16, 1960, by defendants therein, contained, among
others, the following—

“7. She admits that
portion of the allegations in paragraph 8 that the respondent (acting
in behalf of the estate of deceased M. S. Cruz), gave the claimant the
sum of P 1,230.00 and took charge of the burial expenses but denies the
portion and rest of all the allegations that the sum of P1,650.80
remains as ‘balance of their compensation’, the truth of the matter
being that claimant knew beforehand that said sums were in the nature
of advances which she (claimant) promised would reimburse as soon as
she recovers civil indemnification from the Court of First Instance of
Oriental Mindoro decision on the criminal case filed against the
killers of her husband deceased Ernesto Belleza;

8. She admits the allegations in paragraph 9 but her refusal to
further furnish financial help to the claimant was due to (1) her
securing favorable judgment in the aforementioned case, and (2)
her marriage to another man who can presently support her and
her co-claimants;

9.
The deceased husband of the claimant was not an ’employee’ of the M/S
‘Cinderella’ at the supposed time of accident and the Workmen’s
Compensation Act, he having been employed by an independent contractor,
Rufo Marasigan, who used to be and still is, the ticket agent in
Calapan, Oriental Mindoro for several motor boat operators;

10. The claim has patently prescribed, the death having occurred
on March 22, 1955, according to the complaint and obviously, more
than ninety (90) days had elapsed;

11. That respondent is not personally liable for the claim, if any,
but the estate of the deceased Marcelo E. Cruz, owner and operator
of the M/S ‘CINDERELLA’ at the supposed time of accident and the
proper recourse on the part of the claimants is to file the claim in
the intestate proceedings pursuant to Sec. 1, et seq., Rule 87 of the Rules of Court.”

On March 22, 1961, respondent Carmen D. Vda. de Cruz,
presented a Motion to Dismiss, contending that she was
the wrong party respondent—should have been the estate
of Marcelo E. Cruz; and the instant claim should have been
presented with the intestate court and against the estate.
Claimants opposed the motion to dismiss, moved to amend
the complaint, so as to include the widow and the children
of the deceased Marcelo E. Cruz and set the hearing of
the case at Calapan, Mindoro. On April 21, 1961, respondent Vda. de Cruz, filed an Opposition to the Motion to
Amend Complaint and against motion to dismiss. The
motions to dismiss were denied and the motion to amend
the complaint was granted in two Orders of the Hearing
Officer of the Regional Office, dated May 24, and June 21,
1961, and the hearing was set for August 21, 1961, at Calapan, Mindoro.

Claiming that the Regional Office No. 5 of the Department of Labor, thru its hearing Officer, respondent
Teodorico Ona, was without or exceeded its jurisdiction
and/or committed grave abuse of discretion in taking;
cognizance of the claim, in denying the motions to dismiss
and setting the case for hearing, for which there is no
appeal nor any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the
ordinary course of law, petitioners brought the matter to
this Court on a writ for prohibition with Preliminary
Injunction. We gave due course to the petition, but without preliminary injunction.

As gathered from the different pleadings, the dominant
issues which need determination are: (1) Whether the
Regional Office No. 5 of the Department of Labor, Workmen’s Compensation Commission, has jurisdiction to take
cognizance of the claim for compensation; and (2) Whether
the claim has already prescribed?

Petitioners contend that since the claim arose at a time
when the estate of Marcelo E. Cruz was the subject of
intestate proceedings, the same should have been presented
in the regular courts. In support of the above contention,.
petitioners cited Sec. 5, Rule 87, which provides—

“All claims for money against the decedent arising from contract,
express or implied, whether the same be due, not due, or contingent,
all claims for funeral expenses and expenses of the last sickness of
the decedent, and judgment for money against the decedent, must be
filed within the time limited in the notice, otherwise they are barred
forever, except that they may be set forth as counterclaims in any
action that the executor or administrator may bring against the
claimants. * * *”

We are, however, of the opinion that the above provision
of law has no application to the case at bar. This is a case
properly belonging to the exclusive jurisdiction of the
Workmen’s Compensation Commission. The deceased died
in an accident arising out of and in the course of his
employment (section 2, of Act No. 3428, as amended).
The Workmen’s Compensation Law is a special law, and
outlines or prescribes the requisites and procedure to be
followed in cases coming under its aegis (sec. 48, same
Act). Being a special law covering special cases, same
should govern to the exclusion of general rules or laws,
provisions of sec. 1, Rule 87, to the contrary notwithstanding. The history and objectives in the enactment of the
Workmen’s Compensation Law take this case away from
the provisions of the general laws. The regular courts
may only intervene in the prosecution of Workmen’s Compensation, in the case of execution of a final judgment of the
Workmen’s Compensation Commission, in the manner
provided by section 51, of same Act. Moreover, the Rules

of Court are merely suppletory if the case is not provided
for by other laws, like the present one (Rule 132).

It would be a sad day in the odyssey of the deserving
man of labor, to be deprived of his right to redress his
grievances, if, for doubtful technicalities, he should be
thrown out of Court. The complaint shows the existence
of a valid cause of action, if the allegations therein are
true. The petitioners had answered and put up affirmative
defenses, which need to be ventilated in a trial in order to
decide the case with justice. The grounds of the motion
to dismiss are not indubitable. The respondents-claimants
should be given the opportunity to prove their case.

In the regular courts, the claim of respondents had long
been barred. Of this, the petitioners are fully aware. But
the Workmen’s Compensation Commission can still throw
a beam of hope to respondents.

Petitioner argues that the action has prescribed, because
the claim had been filed beyond the reglementary period
(three months from the occurrence of the accident). The
complaint, however, alleges that the petitioners spent for
the burial of the deceased and after the burial, had paid
the claimants the sum P1,230.00 out of the estimated compensation of P2,880.00 plus P200.00 for burial expenses,
in accordance with secs. 8 and 10, of the W.C. Law, thereby
leaving an unpaid balance of P1,650.80, which is the one
being claimed now. If this allegation is true, “the claim
for compensation to be made within the time limits above
established shall no longer be necessary” (sec. 24, Act No.
3428, as amended).

In view of the conclusions reached, other questions
raised, need not be discussed.

The petition is dismissed, for lack of merits. The orders
sought to be reviewed hereby are affirmed. Costs taxed
against petitioners.

Bengzon, C. J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion,
Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Dizon, Regala, and Makalintal,
JJ. concur.