CRISPINIANO BLANCO, PETITIONER, VS. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, TOMAS DRAGON AND ERLINDA DOMULOT, RESPONDENTS.

Appeal from a decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission in
WC cases Nos. RO-1-981 and RO-1-1010-A, of the following tenor:

“WHEREFORE, the decisions appealed from should be, as they are
hereby, set aside and respondent or­dered:

(1)  To pay claimants Sebastian Dragon and
Bonifacia Dumlao the amount of THREE THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED PESOS (P3,500.00),
as death benefits; and the amount of TWO HUNDRED PESOS (P200.00), as burial
expenses;

(2)  To pay claimants Erlinda Domulot and Remedious
Basa the amount of THREE THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED PESOS (P3,500.00), as death
benefits; and the amount of TWO HUNDRED PESOS (P200.00), as burial expenses;

(3)  To pay this Commission the amount of SEVENTY
TWO PESOS (P72.00), = as decision fees, pursuant to Section 55 of the Workmen’s
Compensation Act, as amended; and

(4)  To pay the fees of claimants’ (Dragon’s and
Domulot’s) legal counsel in the total amount of FIVE HUNDRED TWENTY FIVE PESOS
(P525.00) which represents 7.5% of the total compensation (P3,500.00 +
P3,500.00 = P7,000.00) due both claimants in these two cases, pursuant to Section
6, Rule 26 of the Rules of WCC and Article 2208 (8) of the new Civil
Code.”

At about 3:30 in the morning of June 18, 1956, a six-­by-six
truck loaded with around sixty pieces of logs and with six men on board, turned
turtle at Masinloc, Zambales.  Four of
said persons named Tomas Dragon, Diomedes Basa, An­tonio Panis and Wilfredo de
la Cruz died instantaneously, while the other two, Amador Macaspac, driver of
the truck, and Dominador Domulot, were spared. 
The owner of the truck was herein petitioner Crispiniano Blanco who had
been engaged in the logging business since the year 1948.  Basa, De la Cruz and Domulot were employed by
him as wood cutters and were on board the truck upon his orders, to help the
driver, Macaspac, in making the delivery of the logs.  Panis acted as their foreman.

According to the evidence, Dragon and Basa, during their
lifetime, earned an average weekly wage of P50.00 in addition to the food and
cigarettes they used to receive.  The
former was survived by his parents, Sebastian Dragon and Bonifacia Dumlao, who
were both totally dependent upon him for support, while the latter was survived
by his wife, Erlinda Domulot, and an only daughter named Remedios, both of whom
were also wholly dependent upon him for support.

Upon the death of Dragon and Basa, petitioner paid the latter’s
widow, Erlinda Domulot, the amount of P500.00. 
A similar amount was paid to Sebastian Dragon, Tomas’ father, and
Rosario Dragon, the widow of Wilfredo de la Cruz.  These sums
of money were paid allegedly as consideration for the dismissal of the charges
filed against the driver, Macaspac, who had also bound himself to pay the same
amount to the three parties already named.

Notwithstanding the money paid to them as mentioned above,
Sebastian Dragon and Erlinda Domulot filed their respective claims for death
compensation.  Petitioner denied
liability, alleging that no employer-employee re­lation existed between him and
the deceased Tomas Dragon and Diomedes Basa, and alleging further that he did
not know that they were on board the truck that met the accident already
referred to.

After due hearing, both
claims were denied:  that of Tomas Dragon
in a decision rendered on August 28, 1961 by Hearing Officer Pedro A. de Leon, and that of Erlinda Domulot in a decision dated August 31 of
the same year rendered by Hearing Officer Hipolito H. Nagui, both decisions
holding that the claimants had failed to prove the existence of the
employer-employee relation between petitioner Crispiniano Blanco, on the one
hand, and the deceased Tomas Dragon and Diomedes Basa, on the other.  The claimants appealed to the Commission who
on November 20, 1962, through Chairman Nieves Baens del Rosario, rendered
judgment setting aside both decisions and awarding compensation as provided in
the decision appealed from.  Petitioner’s
motion for reconsideration was denied by the Commission en banc
on May 17 of the following year.

Thereafter and within the time provided by law, Blanco filed with
this Court the Petition for Certiorari now under consideration relying in
support thereof on the following:

“A.  The right of the respondent Commission to
decide the principal case after the Petition for Review had been withdrawn by
the party filing the same;

“B. The right
of the respondent Workmen’s Compensation Commission to act upon a claim that
has already prescribed pursuant to Section 24 of the Workmen’s Compensation
Act, as amended;

“C.  The
extent of the right of the res­pondent Workmen’s Compensation Commission to
admit hearsay evidence;

“D.  The serious error of the respondent Workmen’s Compensation Commission in consider­ing
the Amicable Settlement in a criminal case as proof of the employer-employee
relationship between the petitioner and the deceased;

“E.  The serious error of the respondent Workmen’s
Compensation Commission in holding that there is an employer-employee relation­ship
between the petitioner and the deceased although no evidence was presented to
prove this point;

“F.  The serious error of the respondent Workmen’s
Compensation Commission in awarding burial expenses and attorney’s fees to the
claimants although the same has not been de­manded and no proof whatsoever was
presented by the claimants that they are entitled to these items awarded by the
Workmen’s Compen­sation Commission.”

The contention that the Wage Compensation Commission lost its
jurisdiction to act upon the petitions for review filed by the heirs of Tomas
Dragon and of Erlinda Domulot upon the withdrawal thereof by them is without
merit.

We agree with the Commission’s finding that the alleged
withdrawal of the petitions for review was not sufficiently established.  It was denied by the claimant who allegedly
signed the Motion to Withdraw who further stated in an affidavit filed with the
Commission in con­nection with the alleged withdrawal that, if he, in fact, did
sign the motion, his signature was obtained through fraud and misrepresentation
because the only documents he remembers having signed were presented to him by
petitioner, accompanied by a certain Justice of the Peace, the former having
assured him that they were a mere certificate of the dismissal of the criminal
case filed against the driver, Macaspac.

It can not be denied that the Commission had juris­diction to
decide the question of whether or not the signa­ture appearing on the motion to
withdraw was obtained through fraud and misrepresentation.  Having arrived at the conclusion that the claimant who was supposed to
have signed it never intended to withdraw his claim and that his signature was
obtained “through fraud and misrepre­sentation”, said Commission was
right in considering the petitions for
review and in rendering thereafter the corresponding judgment.

Petitioner’s contention
that the claims had already prescribed is likewise untenable.  Suffice it to say in this connection that he
raised this defense not during the trial but only when the claimants appealed
to the Commission.  It is already
well-settled in this juris­diction that such defense cannot be raised for the
first time on appeal, it being presumed that it was waived upon the employer’s
failure to plead it as a defense before or during the trial.  (Regalado vs. Visayan Shipping Co., G. R.
L-42856, May 21, 1954; Martha Lumber Mill vs. Lagra­dante, G. R. L-7599, June
27, 1956; Victorias Milling Co. vs. Wage Compensation Commission, et al., G. R.
L-10533, May 15, 1957).

Moreover, petitioner is barred
from invoking the defense of prescription for the reason that he had failed to
controvert the claims now in question within the period provided by law.  (Sec. 45, Workmen’s Compensation Act, as
amended).  Petitioner says, however, that
he could not have done so in view of his contention that no employer-employee
relation existed between him, on the one hand, and the deceased Dragon and
Basa, on the other.  This is not legally
sufficient to place him beyond the reach of the rule that the employer’s
failure to controvert a claim for compensation entitles the claimant to
compensation as a matter of law, because petitioner herein had the right to
choose between two defenses, and having chosen to stand on one, he must
necessarily be deemed to have waived the other. 
Moreover, he could have alleged prescription as an alter­native defense,
but failed to do so.

Petitioner’s last
contention is that the Commission committed a grave abuse of
discretion in taking into con­sideration and in giving probative value to the
affidavit of Amador Macaspac, thus depriving him of the right to 4 cross-examine
him.

It is to be observed that while the affidavit aforesaid was admitted
and apparently given some weight to prove the existence of the
employer-employee relation, it was not the only evidence on this point.  In reality, the Commission considered it
merely as corroborating the following competent evidence presented upon the
same issue:  the evidence showing that
the truck that figured in the fatal accident was owned by petitioner who had
been engaged in the logging business since 1948; the evidence on the payment of
the sum of P500.00 to each claimant in consideration of the dismissal of the
criminal case filed against the driver, Amador Macaspac; and the testimonies of
Sebastian Dragon (father of the deceased Tomas), Rosario Dragon, (wife of the
deceased Wilfredo de la Cruz), Erlinda Domulot (wife of the deceased Diomedes
Basa), and Sergio Domulot, Andres and Vedasto Dragon, all of them ex-wood
cutters of the petitioner), clearly pointing to him as the employer of the two
de­ceased from 1948 to 1956.

With what has been said heretofore, petitioner’s remaining
contentions have been sufficiently answered. 
We only wish to add that even if we were to disregard the payment of
P500.00 made by petitioner to the heirs of the two persons mentioned
heretofore, there would still be sufficiently substantial evidence in the
record to support the findings of fact of the Commission.

WHEREFORE, the appealed joint decision is affirmed, with
costs.

Concepcion, C.J., Makalintal, Sanchez, Castro, Fernando,
Capistrano, Teehankee, and Barredo, JJ.,
concur.

Reyes, J.B.L., and
Zaldivar, JJ., are on leave.