Facts:

The case involves Aboitiz Shipping Corporation as the petitioner and Demetria Oqueria, along with her children Memoration, Elicita, Maximo, and Marieta Buen, as the respondents. The specific events that led to the dispute began on October 14, 1961, when Sofronio Buen, a seaman employed by Aboitiz Shipping Corporation, went missing from the M/V Carmen while it was navigating the high seas near Kaubian Island. The vessel was on a voyage from Cebu City to Surigao del Norte at the time of the incident. Following this tragic event, the captain of the ship, Publio Gacela, filed a marine protest at Tandag, Surigao del Sur after unsuccessful attempts to recover Buen’s body. An employers' report of the accident was supposed to be submitted by Aboitiz Shipping, but they failed to submit it within the legally required timeframe. Instead, on January 26, 1962, Aboitiz Shipping clarified that the ship belonged to them and did not deny the responsibility. They then submitted the necessary

...

Facts:

Parties and Procedural Background

• Petitioner: Aboitiz Shipping Corporation.
• Respondents: Demetria Oqueria and the minors Memoracion, Elicita, Maximo, and Marieta, all surnamed Buen (represented by their mother, Demetria Oqueria).
• Proceedings involved an appeal by certiorari from an order and resolution of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission (WCC) sustaining a claim for compensation.

Incident and Circumstances of the Loss

• Sofronio Buen, a seaman employed by the petitioner, was lost at sea while the vessel M/V Carmen was navigating the high seas near Kaubian Island.
• The vessel was voyaging from Cebu City to Surigao del Norte on October 14, 1961, when the disappearance was detected by a watchman.
• Following unsuccessful efforts to recover Buen’s body, the vessel’s Master, Publio Gacela, filed a marine protest, noting the unfortunate circumstances.

Employer’s Report of Accident and Administrative Communications

• On January 3, 1962, Regional Office No. VIII, noting petitioner’s failure to timely submit the Employer’s Report of Accident, communicated a request to the manager of Aboitiz Co., Inc., enclosing necessary forms (Annex A).
• On January 26, 1962, Aboitiz Co., Inc. transmitted a reply indicating that the vessel belonged not to them but to petitioner Aboitiz Shipping Corporation. The forms and letter were accordingly forwarded (Annex B).
• Petitioner acknowledged receipt and, on January 29, 1962, submitted the duly completed forms in a communication to Regional Office No. VIII (Annex C).
• Despite the eventual submission on January 30, 1962, the report was filed 108 days after the accident, well beyond the prescribed statutory period.

Award and Subsequent Motions

• On February 20, 1962, the Regional Labor Administrator, considering the compensation claim uncontroverted, rendered an award declaring the respondents entitled to a total compensation of ₱3,806.40 and directed an additional ₱39.00 for the WCC fee (Annex G).
• Petitioner moved on March 16, 1962, to set aside the award; however, this motion was denied in an order dated May 14, 1962.
• A motion for review of the award and the denial was subsequently filed on June 21, 1962, which was dismissed by the Chairman of the WCC on January 14, 1963, on the grounds of untimely filing.
• A motion for reconsideration filed on or about January 26, 1968, was also denied by the en banc WCC on February 19, 1963.
• Petitioner’s appeal by certiorari was predicated on multiple alleged errors regarding the administrative process and the implications of its actions.

Issue:

Controverting the Claim for Compensation

• Whether the petitioner erred in being deemed to have renounced its right to controvert the compensation claim due to its failure to promptly file the Employer’s Report of Accident.
• Whether the petitioner’s late submission of the report (filing on January 30, 1962) was sufficient to reinstate its right to challenge the claim on reasonable grounds.

Notice and Procedural Defects

• Whether it was erroneous for the Commission to issue and effectuate the award without a prior notice and hearing despite the petitioner’s contentions.
• Whether the procedure of serving notice of the award to petitioner (via its counsel or directly) complied with the requirements of Section 2, Rule 27, of the Rules of Court.

Inference of Death

• Whether the Commission improperly presumed the death of Sofronio Buen solely on account of his disappearance from the vessel.
• Whether the circumstances on board and the supplementary reports sufficiently warranted the conclusion of death.

Timeliness of Motions and Finality of Award

• Whether the petitioner’s motion to set aside the award, filed on March 16, 1962, was timelier or effectively barred by the provisions of Rule 23, Section 1, of the Rules of the Commission.
• Whether the reglementary period for seeking review should have commenced upon receipt by petitioner’s counsel or upon another triggering event, considering the service particulars.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)