CARLOS CORDOVA, PETITIONER, VS. THE PROVINCIAL SHERIFF OF ILOILO, WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION UNIT, REGIONAL OFFICE NO. VII, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, ILOILO CITY, AND ROSEMINDA VDA. DE D…

Petition for certiorari with preliminary injunction
raising as lone principal issue the alleged abuse of discretion committed by
the Workmen’s Compensation Unit, Regional Office No VII, Department of Labor,
Iloilo City (Acting Referee Demetrio P. Correa) in
rendering a decision against petitioner Carlos Cordova, in WCU Case No. 12756,
entitled:  “Roseminda
Vda. de Dejando, for
herself and in behalf of her son, Jose Mari Dejando,
claimants, vs. Antero Edrosolano
and Carlos Cordova, respondents, (for the death of husband)”,
notwithstanding that said respondent Workmen’s Compensation Unit never acquired
jurisdiction over the per­son of petitioner for failure to serve the latter
with summons in the aforementioned case.

This Court in its resolutions dated May 21, 1970, required
respondents to answer the petition and issued a temporary restraining order
enjoining the respondent Provincial Sheriff of Iloilo, et al., from continuing
with the sale at public auction scheduled on May 22, 1970, of the properties of
petitioner described in the notice of sale at public auction dated April 28,
1970, issued in Workmen’s Compensation Unit Case No 12756.  The private respon­dents Dejandos
filed an urgent motion for extension of time to file answer on May 29, 1970 and filed their answer
on June 16, 1970.  The petitioner, on June 10, 1970, filed with this Court
supplementary annexes consisting of three documents, to wit:

1.  Annex “H”,
Certification issued by Transportation Inspector of Public Service Commission,
Iloilo, showing that “Ame” Taxi Co. was formerly
owned and operated by Antero Edrosolano,
of Jaro, Iloilo City, had been transferred to Manuel Bellosillo of Iloilo City, up to the present, by virtue of
a decision granted by the Honorable Public Service Commission in a Sale dated October 19, 1966, under Case No. 66-6073;^[1]

2.  Annex “I”,
Certification issued by Land Transportation Commission Registrar, Iloilo
City, showing that Mr. Manuel Bellosillo of Iloilo
City is the registered owner of
“Ame” Taxi for the current year 1970, and
not the petitioner Carlos Cordova;^[2]

3.  Annex “J”,
Order of dismissal of Criminal Case No. 38903, against accused Luis Jimenea, a passenger of “Ame”
Taxi who allegedly shot to death driver Demetrio Dejando, husband of claimant Roseminda
Vda. de Dejando in WCU Case
No. 12756.^[3]

When this Court heard the case on June 10, 1970, only the counsel for
petitioner appeared and was given 15 days to submit memorandum in lieu of oral
argument, said memorandum was submitted on June 25, 1970. 
Respondent WCU, Region VII, Iloilo
City, through counsel filed a
motion for extension of time to file answer on June 17, 1970, but said answer is not in the rollo of the case. 
The private respondents filed their reply, to the memorandum filed by
petitioner, on August 4, 1970.

Uncontroverted facts of record, are:

(1) Because Demetrio Dejando
was shot by one Luis Jimenea, a passenger, in the
early morning of February 16, 1967,
while the former was driving a “Ame” taxi,
private respondent Reseminda Vda.
de Dejando, for herself and in behalf of her minor
son, Jose Mari, filed a death compensation claim on February 20, 1967, against allegedly operator Antero Edorosolano and owner
(petitioner) Carlos Cordova, respectively, with the respondent Workmen’s
Compensation Unit, Regional Office No. VII, Iloilo
City, docketed as WCU Case No.
12756, entitled “Roseminda Vda.
de Dejando, for herself and in behalf of her son,
Jose Mari Dejando, claimants, vs. Antero
Edrosolano and
Carlos Cordova, respondents.”^[4]

(2) That respondent Workmen’s Compensation Unit issued summons in
WCU Case No. 12756, on April 11, 1967,
directed to “Mr. Antero Edrosolano
and/or Carlos Cordova, c/o Atty. Cirilo Y. Ganzon, Isnart
Street, Iloilo City”.^[5]

(3) That petitioner claims that summons were not served on him as
shown by the records of WCU Case No. 12756, and that respondent Workmen’s
Compensation Unit; through referee Atty. Demetrio P.
Correa, assumed jurisdiction over the person of petitioner, proceeded with the
hearing of the case and rendered decision therein adverse to petitioner.^[6]

(4) That in October, 1968, petitioner was served with a copy of a
writ of execution issued by Atty. Cele­rino Grecia II, Chief of the Workmen’s Compensation Unit, Office
No. VII, Department of Labor, Iloilo City,
to enforce judgment in WCU Case No 12756.^[7]

(5) That on October 31, 1968, petitioner filed with respondent
Workmen’s Compensation Unit, a special ap­pearance and motion for
reconsideration, questioning the jurisdiction of respondent Workmen’s
Compensation Unit over the petitioner on the ground that he never received
summons in WCU Case No. 12756, that he did not know he was a respondent in said
case, and that the lawyers who appeared in said case representing themselves as
appearing for petitioner were never hired by him because he did not know of the
existing case against him until a copy of the writ of execution in the already
decided case was served upon him in October of 1968, and thereby asking
respondent Workmen’s Compensation Unit to set aside the decision in WCU Case
No. 12756 for lack of jurisdiction over
petitioner.^[8]

(6) That respondent Workmen’s Compensation Unit ordered the private
respondents Dejandos to reply or oppose petitioner’s
motion for special appearance and re
consideration.^[9]

(7) That petitioner’s special appearance and motion for
reconsideration was not acted upon and resolved by respondent Workmen’s
Compensation Unit, and instead respondent Provincial Sheriff of Iloilo showed
his determination to enforce the writ of execution issued in WCU Case No.
12756, ‘by levying upon the properties of petitioner and advertising the sale
of the same scheduled on May 22, 1970. ^[10]

(8) That after the decision in WCU Case No. 12756 was promulgated
by the respondent Workmen’s Compensa­tion Unit, the lawyers supposed to
represent Antero Edrosolano
and Carlos Cordova (Cordova as petitioner in this case denied that he hired
those lawyers to represent him and he did not know of the existence of WCU Case
No. 12756 at that time) filed a motion for reconsideration of the decision
which was denied by respondent Workmen’s Compensation Unit in its order dated
August 10, 1968, on the ground that although at the rehearing granted only Antero Edrosolano appeared to
testify and petitioner Carlos Cordova did not appear (supporting petitioner’s
allegation that he did not know of WCU
Case No. 12756 at that time), and Edrosolano
testified that petitioner Carlos Cordova had nothing to do with the operation
of the “Ame” taxi, the respondent Workmen’s
Compensation Unit believed that the deceased Demetrio
Dejando was really hired as driver by Edrosolano, and hence the motion for reconsideration was
denied and the decision of June 26, 1968 revived completely.^[11]

(9) When the property of petitioner Carlos Cordova was scheduled to
be sold at public auction on July 8, 1969, by virtue of the writ of execution
issued by respondent ‘Workmen’s Compensation Unit on October 8, 1968,
petitioner filed Civil Case No. 7960, for injunction, with the Court of First
Instance of Iloilo on June 5, 1969 trying to stop the execution of the decision
of respondent Workmen’s Compensation Unit in WCU Case No. 12756, but the Court
of First Instance of Iloilo, Branch I (Judge Emigdio
V. Nietes), in its order dated March 9, 1970,
dismissed the petition on the ground that the Court of First instance did not
have jurisdiction to enjoin the writ of execution issued by respondent
Workmen’s Compensation Unit in WCU Case No. 12756.^[12]

(10) Upon the republication of the sale at public auction of
petitioner’s properties and the re-schedule of sale by the respondent
Provincial Sheriff on May 22, 1970,
this petition for certiorari with preliminary injunction was filed with this Court on May 20,
1970.^[13]

As to the principal issue of whether or not petitioner received
summons issued by the respondent Workmen’s Compensation Unit in WCU Case No.
12756, a close scrutiny of the record of this case unmistakably shows a clear
preponderance of evidence in favor of petitioner.  The summons issued by the respondent
Workmen’s Compensation Unit, on April
11, 1967, was directed to “Mr. Antero
Edrosolano and/or Carlos Cordova, c/o Atty. Cirilo Y. Ganzon, Isnart Street, Iloilo
City.”^[14]
It is immediately noticeable that such summons was not directed to the address
of petitioner Carlos Cordova, whose address ap­pearing in the Notice and Claim
For Compensation in Death Cases,^[15] is “La Granja, La Paz, Iloilo City“. 
This notice and claim was signed by private respondent Roseminda Vda. de Dejando.  The
respondent Dejando’s claim that on March 10, 1967, a
registered letter with registry receipt No. 14284 was sent by respondent Workmen’s
Compensation Unit to petitioner at La Granja, La Paz,
Iloilo, informing him of the notice for accident and sick­ness filed by
respondents Dejandos and that no employer’s report of
accident was ever made by the petitioner, is of no moment to the issue of
failure to serve summons on the petitioner in WCU Case No. 12756, because there
certainly is a great difference between the Notice And Claim For Compensation
In Death Cases executed by respondent Dejandos,^[16]
and the summons issued on April 11, 1967 by respondent Workmen’s Compensation
Unit in WCU Case No. 12756.^[17]
That no employer’s report of accident was ever made by petitioner is
understandable in view of his unrefuted claim that
“Ame” taxi company was owned by Manuel Bellosillo of Iloilo City since October 9, 1966,^[18]
and at the time of the death of driver Dejando on
February 16, 1967, petitioner had never been the owner nor operator of the
“Ame” taxi, and, therefore, had never been
the employer of Dejando.  Clearly, therefore, there is no evidence that
petitioner received the summons issued by the respondent Workmen’s Compensation
Unit in WCU Case No. 12756, because the address given in the summons was that
of Atty. Ganzon, and not that of petitioner and petitioner
denied under oath that Atty. Ganzon was authorized to
represent him in WCU Case No. 12756. 
Another convincing circumstance in the resolution of this issue is that
petitioner never appeared before the respondent Workmen’s Compensation Unit, at
the original hearing, in Case No. 12756, and not even during the hearing that
was granted by respondent Workmen’s Compensation Unit after a motion for
reconsideration of the decision promulgated in said case, when the respondent
Workmen’s Compensation Unit in its order dated August 30, 1968, categorically
stated that petitioner never appeared and it was only Antero
Edrosolano who appeared and testified that petitioner
had nothing whatsoever to do with the
operation of the “Ame” taxi.^[19]

We therefore hold that respondent Workmen’s Compensation Unit
never acquired jurisdiction over the person of petitioner for failure to serve
the latter with the required summons.

WHEREFORE, the decision of respondent Workmen’s
Compensation Unit, Regional Office No. VII, Department of Labor, Iloilo City,
in WCU Case No. 12756, in so far as it affects petitioner, is hereby set aside,
the writ of execution issued therein against petitioner nullifed,
and the restraining order issued herein made permanent, with costs against
private respondents Dejandos.

SO ORDERED.

Santos, and Abad Santos,
JJ., concur.

Fernando, (Chairman), J., concurs
on the express understanding that the right to collect the compensation due
subsists against respondent Edrosolano in WCU Case
No. 12756.

Aquino, J., see concurring opinion.

Antonio, J., concurs in the
separate opinion of J. Aquino.

Barredo, J., did not take part.

^[1]
pp. 34-36, rollo.

^[2]
pp. 34, 37, rollo.

^[3]
pp. 34, 39, rollo.

^[4]
pp. 1, 12, 14, rollo.

^[5]
p. 13, rollo.

^[6]
pp. 2, 14-18, rollo.

^[7]
pp. 2, 19, rollo.

^[8]
pp. 2-3, 20-21, rollo.

^[9]
pp. 3, 23, rollo.

^[10]
pp. 3, 24, rollo.

^[11]
pp. 44; 55-58, rollo.

^[12]
pp. 44-45; 72-75; 80, rollo.

^[13]
pp. 1, 45, rollo.

^[14]
p. 13, rollo.

^[15]
p. 12, rollo.

^[16]
p. 12, rollo.

^[17]
p. 13, rollo.

^[18]
p. 36, rollo.

^[19]
pp. 55-58, rollo.

150
Clean
Clean

6 pt
6 pt
0
3

MicrosoftInternetExplorer4

st1:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) }

/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:”Table Normal”;
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:””;
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:”Times New Roman”;}