DELGADO BROTHERS, INC., PETITIONER, VS. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION AND GLORIA PALERO, RESPONDENTS.

Petition for review^[1]
of the decision of the respondent Workmen’s Compensation Commission affirming
the award of death compensation benefits made by the Acting Referee of the
Workmen’s Compensation Section, Regional
Office No. 4, Department of Labor, in favor of private respondent.

Fernando Palero was employed by
petitioner Delgado Brothers, Inc. as a “plant-in-charge” at the petitioner’s compound in Mariveles,
Bataan.  As a “plant-in-charge” Palero had something to do with the care of and in some way
in charge of the plant of the company
for which reason he was given the privilege of living within the premises of
the company.  He received a salary of
P58.00 a week.

On July 15, 1973,
Fernando Palero and Benjamin Calupitan,
another employee of petitioner, had a drinking spree near the house of the
former.  Being a Sunday, they did not
have any work on that day.  At about 6:00 P.M. of the same day, Fernando Palero conducted Benjamin Calupitan
to his home as he was already drunk. 
When they were already near the house of Calupitan,
Alfredo Moral, the officer-in-charge of the security guards who was then on
duty, saw Fernando Palero and Benjamin Calupitan quarreling. 
Alfredo Moral approached the two and tried to pacify them.  But Fernando Palero
tried to meet Alfredo Moral and wrest his gun. 
While the latter and Fernando Palero were
wrestling for the gun, the same went off hitting Fernando Palero.  A few hours later, Fernando Palero expired as a result of the gunshot wounds he
sustained.

On August 7, 1974,
Gloria Palero, the widow of the deceased, for and in
behalf of her four minor children filed
a Notice of Death and Claim for Compensation with the Workmen’s Compensation
Section of Regional Office No. 4, Department of Labor (RO4-WCC Case No.
157334).  On May 7, 1975, petitioner submitted to the Workmen’s
Compensation Section of the
Department of Labor, Regional Office No. 4, the required Employer’s Report of
Accident or Sickness.  In said report it controverted the claim of private respondent.  Subsequently, private respondent was required
to submit the affidavits of her witnesses and other documentary evidence to
establish her claim.  Upon his verbal
request the Acting Referee issued an order
allowing petitioner to submit counter-affidavits.  Based on the affidavits and counter-affidavits
submitted by the parties, the Acting Referee rendered a decision on September
30, 1975, the dispositive portion of which reads as follows:

“WHEREFORE, considering the above premises, judgment is hereby
rendered in favor of the Claimant and minor children and order­ing the
Respondent to pay the Claim­ant and minor children, through this Office, the
following, to wit:

1.  Total sum of Six Thousand
Pesos (P6,000.00) as compensation for death benefits;

2.  Total sum of Two Hundred
Pesos (P200.00) as reimbursement for funeral expenses;

3.  Total sum of Three
Hundred Pesos (P300.00) as Attorney’s fees payable to Atty. Pedro C. Ramos,
pursuant to Section 31 of the Act, as amended;

4.  Total sum of Sixty-One
Pesos (P61.00) to the Workmen’s Compensation Fund, as Decision and administrative fee, pursuant to Section 55
of the Act, as amended.”

Petitioner moved for a reconsideration of
the decision of the Acting Referee but the same was denied and so the entire
records of the case were elevated to the Workmen’s Compensation Commission for
review.  On January 21, 1976, the Workmen’s Compensation Commission, en banc rendered a decision affirming the decision of the Acting
Referee.

Not satisfied with the decision of the respondent Commission,
petitioner has come to this Court on a petition for review, raising the following
issues:

1.  WHETHER THE DEATH OF THE
DECEASED FERNADO PALERO IS COMPENSABLE UNDER THE WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION ACT, AS
AMENDED, ALTHOUGH THE SAME IS DUE TO GUN­SHOT WOUND SUSTAINED BY HIM WHILE
TRYING TO WREST FORCIBLY THE GUN OF A SECURITY OFFICER ON DUTY AT PETITIONER’S
COMPOUND, AND ALTHOUGH HE WAS NOT AT WORK ON THE DAY HE SUSTAINED THE INJURY
(GUNSHOT WOUND) WHICH CAUSED HIS DEATH, SAID DAY, BEING A SUNDAY.

2.   WHETHER THE ORDER DIRECT­ING PETITIONER,
AFTER THE LATTER FAILED TO SEASONABLY SUBMIT THE REQUIRED NOTICE OF
CONTROVERSION ISSUED BY THE ACTING REFEREE AFTER PETITIONER REQUESTED IN OPEN
COURT THAT IT BE ALLOWED TO
SUBMIT COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF ITS DEFENSE, HAS THE EFFECT OF REINSTATING
PETITIONER’S RIGHT TO CONTROVERT THE CLAIM.

Considering that there
was no valid controversion of the claim of private
respondents in this case, the Court feels that there would be no need of resolving
the other issue as to whether the death of the deceased is compensable
under the Workmen’s Compensation Act as amended, although the
same was due to a gunshot wound sustained by him while trying to wrest forcibly
the gun of the Security Officer on duty at petitioner’s compound and although he was not at work on the day he sustained
the injury (gunshot wound) which caused his death said day, being a
Sunday.  There was no valid controversion of the claim of private respondent because the Employer’s Report which embodies the notice of controversion was filed almost nine (9)
months late.  Under Sec. 45 of the
Workmen’s Compensation Act,
as amended, in case the employer decided to controvert the right to
compensation, he shall, either on or before the 14th day of disability or
within 10 days after he has knowledge
of the alleged accident, file a notice to the Commission that compensation is
not being paid and the reason why it is not being paid.  This is called the Notice of Controversion.  It appears that the Notice of Death and Claim for Compensation
was filed on August 7, 1974 but the Notice of Controversion
was filed only on May 7, 1975.  Not
only that.  The Notice of Controversion also failed to specify in clear terms the
ground for controversion.  It has been consistently held in a long line
of cases that failure on the part
of the employer to file a seasonable notice of controversion
of the right of the employee to compensation as required by Section 45 of the
Workmen’s Compensation Act, as amended, constitutes a waiver by operation of law of his right to
controvert the employee’s claim for compensation on non-jurisdictional grounds
and such legal effect does not
violate the requirements of due process.^[2] Failure of
employer to controvert is a renunciation
of the right to challenge the claim and a waiver of all non-jurisdictional defenses and there is nothing that the
employer can legally prove in relation thereto^[3] It
is not therefore correct to say
that respondent Commission committed grave abuse of discretion when it ruled that by laches the petitioner was barred from asserting any defense
against the claim of respondent and that the presumption of compensability
prevails in their favor.

Petitioner, however,
submits that although it has failed to seasonably submit the required notice of controversion, the Acting
Referee upon request of petitioner ordered the latter to submit
counter-affidavits within ten (10) days from receipt of private respondent’s
affidavits.  This order requiring it to
submit counter-affidavits, according to petitioner, amounts to a reinstatement
of its right to controvert a claim pursuant to Section 3, Rule 8 of the Rules
of the Commission.^[4]
A reading of the cited section will readily suggest
that before an employer or insurance carrier who has failed to controvert the
right to compensation within the period and in the manner prescribed by Section
45 of the Act may have such right reinstated, he must file a petition under
oath with the Unit specifying therein the reasons for its failure to controvert
the right to compensation and the grounds relied upon.  The records do not show that the
petitioner filed such a formal petition under oath with the Workmen’s
Compensation Unit hearing the case.  All
it did was to make an oral motion in open hearing requesting the Acting Referee
that it be allowed to file its counter-affidavits and not to have its right to
controvert reinstated.  It did not give
or specify the reasons why it failed to controvert as required by Section 3,
Rule 8 of the Rules of the Commission. 
When the Acting Referee, therefore, allowed petitioner to file its
counter-affidavits, such permission did not amount to a reinstatement of its
right to controvert because it was not in accordance with the requirements of
the law.  In one case where the hearing
officer even accepted the evidence presented by the petitioner, the Supreme
Court held:

“Mere acceptance by the hearing officer of the evidence presented
did not mean the right to controvert. 
The law itself provides that only the Commissioner may reinstate the
right to controvert.”^[5]

Consequently,
since the respondent company did
not have the right to controvert
because its right to do so had not been legally and validly reinstated, the
counter-affidavits submitted by
it cannot be given any credit.

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the judgment of the respondent
Commission is hereby affirmed.  With
costs against petitioner.

SO ORDERED.

Teehankee, (Chairman), Makasiar, Muñoz Palma, and Concepcion, Jr.,
JJ., concur.

^[1]
Treated as Special Civil Action by Resolution of this Court dated July 9, 1976.

^[2]
Carlos vs. De la Rosa, L-17939,
May 30, 1962, 5 SCRA 262; Iloilo Dock & Engineering Co. vs.
Workmen’s Compensation Commission, L-17283, July 31, 1962, 5 SCRA 765; Republic vs. Workmen’s Compensation Commission, L-17813,
April 30, 1963, 7 SCRA 984; Manila
Railroad Co. vs. Workmen’s Compensation Commis­sion, L-18388, June 28,
1963, 8 SCRA 293; Filipino Pipe & Foundry Corporation vs. Workmen’s Compensation Commission,
L-20381, December 24, 1963, 9 SCRA 721;
La Mallorca vs. Workmen’s Compensation
Commission, L-29315, November 28, 1969, 30
SCRA 613; Republic vs. Workmen’s Compensation Commission, L-26763,
December 26, 1969, May 29, 1970,
33 SCRA 132; Pioneer Ceramics, Inc. vs. Samia L-28819, June 23, 1970, 33 SCRA 487; Guardian
Security and Investigation Agency vs. Workmen’s Compensation Commission, L-26875, July 31, 1970, 34
SCRA 29; Camotes Shipping Corporation vs. Otadoy, L-27699, October 24, 1970, 35 SCRA 456.

^[3]
Dinaro vs. WCC, 70 SCRA 292.

^[4]
“SEC. 3.  – Reinstatement of right to
Controvert.  – An employer or carrier
who has failed to controvert the right to compensation within the period and in
the manner stated in the pre­ceding
sections may file with the Unit
before the award is rendered or before such award become final, a petition
under oath specifying there­in the reasons for his failure to controvert the
right to compensation and the grounds relied upon, in which case the Unit may,
upon reasonable grounds, reinstate the employer’s right to controvert.  Upon the rein­statement of the employer’s
right to controvert, he shall be
required to file within five (5) days from notice the required employer’s report, if he has
not done so.”

^[5]
Agustin vs. WCC, L-19957,
Sept. 29, 1964.