WILLIAMS EQUIPMENT CO. LTD., PETITIONER, VS. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION AND RUBEN R. NAPISA, RESPONDENTS.

Petition for review of the decision of the Workmen’s Compensation
Commission in WC Case No. RPO-A-6471 promulgated on October 2, 1975.

On December 27, 1957, respondent-claimant Ruben Napisa
(hereinafter referred to as claimant) was employed by the petitioner as the
manager of its refrigeration, air conditioning and service department with a
monthly salary of P2,000.00.  While
acting as such, claimant suffered cerebral thrombosis on August 10, 1973.  This was followed by a cerebral stroke on
October 1, 1973 which necessitated his confinement at the Marian Hospital from
November 3 to November 9, 1973 and at the Medical Center, Manila from November
9 to November 23, 1973 when he decided to continue his treatment at home until
December 3, 1973.  On the latter date he
was again confined at the Medical Center, Manila for further treatment as his
ailment worsened with the paralyzation of the right side of his body.

On January 15, 1974, claimant filed his claim for compensation
benefits.  Petitioner controverted the claim
alleging that claimant’s illness did not arise out of his employment nor was
the same aggravated by the nature of his work.

On February 14, 1974, an award was entered by the Chief of Unit,
Rizal Provincial Office, Department of Labor, the dispositive portion of which
reads:

AWARD, therefore, is hereby rendered and the respondent is
directed:

1.  To pay the claimant, thru this Office, the sum
of four thousand two hundred ninety-two pesos and 40/100 (P4,292.40) representing the compensation which has accrued
to date and beginning February 14, 1974,
a weekly compensation of P219.32
until his disability for labor ceases but not exceeding six thousand
pesos (P6,000.00), including the lump sum payment.

2.  To extend
or continue extending to claimant such necessary medical services and supplies
as the nature of his illness and the process of his recovery may require and
that which will promote his early restoration to the maximum level of his
physical capacity and should respondent fail on this regard claimant may secure
such medical services and supplies at respondent’s expense; and

3.  To pay to the Workmen’s Com­pensation Fund,
likewise thru this Office, the sum of P43.00 as partial administrative fee,
pursuant to Section 55 of the
Act. Bill No. W-2055074 (RPO) is
attached.”

Upon motion for reconsideration by the
claimant, the Chief of Unit issued an order on March 7, 1974 raising the
reimbursement for medical expenses to P37, 713.25 out of the claim of P44,004.29.  Petitioner moved for a reconsideration of
said order of March 7, 1974 but the motion was denied by the order of May 3,
1974.  The same order granted the motion
of the claimant filed on February 19, 1974 seeking to implead as
party-respondent the Philippine British Assurance Co., Inc. and/or Ker &
Co., Ltd., as the insurer of petitioner’s compensation liability and
accordingly held the latter and the petitioner jointly and severally liable to
the claimant.

On June 10, 1974, upon payment of the sum of P15,000.00, the
claimant assisted by his counsel, executed a “Full Satis­faction of
Insurance Carrier’s Liability on the Order of This Office dated May 3,
1974.” This was, however, declared as null and void by the order of the
Chief of Unit dated July 8, 1974. 
Subsequently, the records of the case were elevated to the Workmen’s
Compensation Commission for review and the same were referred to the Evaluation
Division for evaluation of the fair and reasonable value of the medical
expenses incurred by the claimant.  In
the meantime, on September 9, 1974, the claimant and his wife executed a
“Deed of Release and Quitclaim” upon receipt of payment from the
petitioner the sum of P21,000.00 exclusive of the P15,000.00 earlier paid by
the insurance carrier.  On Sept­ember 18,
1974, both the petitioner and the claimant filed with the respondent
Commission, an “Amicable Settlement” wherein it was prayed that this
case be dismissed in view of the full and complete satisfaction of the claim
for com­pensation.  This was not,
however, acted upon by the res­pondent Commission.

On October 2, 1975, the respondent Commission rendered its
decision, the dispositive portion of which, reads:

“WHEREFORE, subject to the modi­fication hereinabove
indicated, the award dated February 14, 1974 as amended, should be as it is
hereby AFFIRMED.  Respondents Williams
Equipment Co., Ltd. and the Philippine British Assurance Co., Inc. and/or Ker
& Co., Ltd. are ordered to pay, jointly and severally:

1.  The claimant, thru this Commis­sion, the
amount of SIX THOU­SAND (P6,000.00)
PESOS as compensation plus the amount of TWENTY ONE THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED
TWENTY SEVEN PESOS and 30/100 (P21,327.30) as reimburse­ment of medical
expenses or a total of TWENTY SEVEN THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED TWENTY SEVEN and
30/100 (P27,327.30) from which shall be deducted the amount of FIFTEEN THOUSAND
(P15,000) PESOS thereby leaving a balance of TWELVE THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED
TWENTY SEVEN PESOS and 30/100 (P12,327.30);

2.  To claimant’s counsel, Mr. Bien­venido R.
Raton, the amount of SIX HUNDRED (P600.00) PESOS as attorney’s fee pursuant to
Sec­tion 31 of the Act;

3.  To the Workmen’s Compensation Fund the amount
of SIXTY SIX (P66.00) PESOS as administrative cost including the P5.00 fee for
this review pursuant to Section 55 of the Act; and

4.  Respondent shall further provide the claimant
with such services, appliances and supplies as the nature of his disability and
the process of his recovery may require; and that which will promote his early
restoration to the maxi­mum level of his physical capacity.

SO ORDERED.”

Petitioner now seeks a review of the said
decision on the ground that the same was rendered without jurisdiction and is
therefore, null and void.  It is
contended that since the parties herein had already entered into an amicable
settlement, the claim for compensation is already extinguished for there was no
more basis for the respondent Commission to render the decision in question.

It is undisputed that
after having been impleaded as party-respondent, the Philippine British
Assurance Co., Inc., and/or Ker & Co., Ltd., as insurer of petitioner’s
compensation liability, paid to the claimant the amount of P15,000.00 on June
10, 1974 which the latter acknowledged as full satisfaction of the insurance
carrier’s liability.  Likewise, on
September 9, 1974, claimant received from the petitioner the sum of P21,000.00
for which the former executed a “Deed of Release and Quitclaim.” As a
result thereof, the parties submitted an amicable settlement to the respondent
Commission wherein it was prayed that this case be dismissed.  Claimant has thus received from the
petitioner and the insurance carrier, the total amount of P36,000.00 for his
claim.  In its decision, the respondent
Commission awarded to the claimant P6,000.00 as compensation plus the amount of P21,327.30 as
reimbursement for medical expenses or a total of P27,327.30 from which was
deducted the P15,000.00 paid by the petitioner’s insurance carrier, leaving a
balance of P12,327.30.  We find this to
be erroneous as the respondent Commission failed to credit the amount of P21,000.00
paid by the petitioner to the claimant on September 9, 1974.  While it is true that the respondent
Commission could not have acted upon the amicable settle­ment submitted by the
parties in accordance with Section 29 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act^[1]
because the same failed to mention the terms of the settlement, never­theless,
on October 23, 1975, the petitioner filed a mani­festation alleging that the
amicable settlement submitted was the result of the payment by the petitioner
to the claimant of the sum of P21,000.00 for which the latter executed a
“Deed of Release and Quitclaim” and a certification that said amount
is exclusive of the P15,000.00 paid by the insurance carrier and that by virtue
thereof, it has already satisfied the judgment of the respondent
Commission.  Attached to the said
manifestation were the documents adverted to. 
In effect, said manifestation was a submission for approval of the
agreement (amicable settlement) concerning compensation and the respondent
Commission should not have ignored the same. 
Under the circumstances, petitioner should be credited with the payment
to the claimant of the sum of P21,000.00. 
Adding to the said amount the P15,000.00 paid by the insurance carrier,
the claimant has received a total of P36,000.00 for his claim.  In its decision, the respondent Commission
has awarded to the claimant the aggregate sum of P27,327.30 (P6,000.00 for
compensation and P21,327.30 for reimbursement of medical expenses).  Deducting the award of P27,327.30 from the
P36,000.00 received by the claimant from the peti­tioner as compensation
benefits there is a difference of P8,672.70 which is the excess of what is due
the claimant under the decision of the respondent Commission.  Under Section 29 of the Workmen’s
Compensation Act, in order that an agreement concerning compensation may be
valid, two conditions must be complied: 
(1) the amount agreed upon must be at least equal to that provided by
the Act; and (b) the agree­ment must be approved by the Workmen’s Compensation
Com­missioner or his duly authorized representative.  The settle­ment of compensation cases is
further provided for under Letter of Instruction No. 190 dated June 3, 1974^[2]
and under Department Order No. 3, series of 1974 of the Department of Labor.^[3]
Since the total amount received by the claimant from the petitioner (including
that paid by the latter’s in­surance carrier) in settlement of his claim is not
only equal but even more than what is provided under the Workmen’s Compensation
Act, there is no valid reason for the respondent Commission not to act and give
its stamp of approval to the amicable settlement submitted by the parties.

ACCORDINGLY, the decision of the respondent Commission is
hereby affirmed with the qualification that the award for compensation in the
amount of P6,000.00 and the reimbursement for medical expenses in the sum of
P21,327.30 have been fully satisfied by the petitioner.

SO ORDERED.

Teehankee, (Chairman), Makasiar, Muñoz Palma, Fernandez, and Guerrero, JJ., concur.

^[1] SEC. 29. Agreement on compensation.  – In case employer and the injured laborer or
the dependents entitled to compensation arrive at any agreement
concerning the compensation provided for by this Act, such agreement in order
to be valid, shall provide, at least, the same amount of com­pensation as that
prescribed by this Act and must be approved by the Workmen’s Compensation
Commissioner, or any of his authorized representatives:  Provided, however, That the employer shall be exempt from all liability
under this Act as soon as the compensation has been paid in accordance with this
section, saving the provisions of section six of this Act.

^[2]

LETTER OF INSTRUCTION NO. 190

TO:  The Secretary of Labor

The Administrator, Social Security System

The General Manager,
Government Service Insurance System

In order to effect the orderly
abolition of the present Workmen’s Compensation System and the integration of
the state fund into the Social Security System and the Government Service
Insurance System, as the case may be under the Labor Code, you are hereby
instructed to undertake and implement the following measures:

1. The Department of Labor
through the Secretary of Labor, shall take such remedial steps as may be
necessary expedite the determination and/or settlement under such terms as he
may consider fair and just, of the backlog of compensation cases pending before
the Workmen’s Compensation units in the regional offices of the Department of
Labor as well as in the Workmen’s Compensation Commission to the
end that said backlog may be liquidated by the end of the transistion period.

2. x x x x x

3. x x x x x

Done in the City of Manila, this
3rd day of June, in the year of Our Lord, nineteen hundred and seventy-four.

^[3]
“In implementation of Letter of Instructions No. 190 dated June 3, 1974
directing the Department of Labor through the Secretary of Labor to take such
remedial steps as may be necessary to expedite the determination and/or
settlement of the backlog of compensation cases pending before the Workmen’s
Compensation Units in the regional offices as well as in the Workmen’s
Compensation Com­mission to the end that said backlog may be liquidated by the
end of the transition period, the following guidelines and instructions are
hereby promulgated for immediate and strict compliance.

SECTION 1. Settlement of Cases.  – The Workmen’s Compensation units in the
regional offices shall immediately cause the amicable settlement of all claims
for compensation pending before them and those that may be filed during the
transition period.

The settlement shall be free and
voluntary written language known to the parties, and final and between
them.  (Department Order No. 3, Series of
1974.