Case Digest (G.R. No. L-21335)
Facts:
Between the night of November 30 and the early morning of December 1, 1961, Demetrio Pepito, a crew member of m/v P. Aboitiz, disappeared while the vessel was on voyage from Surigao to Tandag. On December 26, 1961, Vivencia Ando Pepito, the mother of the minors who were the claimants, notified the employer that Pepito was reported missing as reflected in the vessel’s deck log.On January 12, 1962, Vivencia Ando Pepito and the minors filed with Regional Office No. 8, Department of Labor a notice and claim for compensation for death benefits, alleging only that Pepito was “lost or reported missing.” The employer filed an employer’s report of accident or sickness on February 16, 1962, controverting the claim. Without a hearing, the Regional Administrator issued an award on March 21, 1962, and the Workmen’s Compensation Commission affirmed on March 8, 1963; reconsideration was denied on April 5, 1963.
Issues:
- Whether the employer’s delayed controversion barred it from disputing th
Case Digest (G.R. No. L-21335)
Facts:
- Parties and employment relationship
- Aboitiz Shipping Corporation acted as the employer of crew member Demetrio Pepito, who served on m/v P. Aboitiz.
- Vivencia Ando Pepito represented herself and the other respondents: the minors Lolita, Alberto, Nelson, Marylen, and Maria, all surnamed Pepito.
- Disappearance of the employee
- Between the night of November 30 and the early morning of December 1, 1961, Demetrio Pepito disappeared from m/v P. Aboitiz while the vessel was on voyage.
- The vessel was navigating from Surigao to Tandag.
- Initial notification and claim for compensation
- On December 26, 1961, petitioner received from respondent Vivencia Ando Pepito a letter dated December 21, 1961 stating that Demetrio Pepito was reported missing as per the Deck Log Book of m/v P. Aboitiz while the vessel navigated from Surigao to Tandag.
- The letter expressed the belief that Demetrio Pepito was already dead and stated that a diligent search was futile.
- On January 12, 1962, respondent Vivencia Ando Pepito, for herself and in behalf of her children, filed with Regional Office No. 8, Department of Labor, Cebu City a notice and claim for compensation.
- The claim requested death benefits and described the circumstances of the alleged death as follows: while the vessel was navigating from Surigao to Tandag, the deceased was lost or reported missing as per the deck log of m/v P. Aboitiz.
- Employer’s alleged controversion
- On February 15, 1962, petitioner received from the chief, labor operations section of the regional office a letter enclosing the foregoing claim.
- On February 16, 1962, petitioner sent to that office the employer’s report of accident or sickness.
- Petitioner controverted the claim and alleged that Demetrio Pepito was found missing on December 1, 1961, and gave its own version of the incident: Pepito disappeared while off duty, and when the vessel was near Bucas Grande Island in calm sea and good weather; petitioner did not know if Pepito purposely jumped and swam ashore.
- Administrative awards and subsequent proceedings
- On March 21, 1962, without hearing, the Regional Administrator issued an award for death benefits to respondents.
- The award rested on the ground that the right to compensation was not controverted by respondent within the period provided by law.
- Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied.
- Petitioner sought review before the Workmen’s Compensation Commission.
- In a decision dated March 8, 1963, the Workmen’s Compensation Commission affirmed the award.
- Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was resolved adversely in the Commission en banc resolution dated April 5, 1963.
- Contentions addressed in the case
- The Court treated it as undisputed that petitioner came to know of the disappearance on December 1, 1961, and that petitioner received the December 26, 1961 letter informing it of the report of missing on December 1, 1961 as per the deck log.
- The purported controversion filed on February 16, 1962 was beyond the statutory and regulatory periods to controvert.
- The claim and award treated the employee as dead, even though the facts alleged at the time described only loss or reported missing.
- Reference to an investigation report
- The Commission sought to answer petitioner’s due process objection by reference to an investigation report dated January 12, 196...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Whether petitioner’s failure to controvert the claim within the legally required period admitted the fact of actual death of Demetrio Pepito.
- Whether non-controversion under the Workmen’s Compensation framework admitted only the pleaded facts (loss or missing) and not legal conclusions such as actual death.
- Whether the award for death benefits, rendered without hearing and based on the non-controversion ground, violated petitioner’s constitutional right to due process.
- Whether petitioner was deprived of property without due process when the award determined the fact and circumstances of death without giving petitioner an opportunity to be heard.
- Whether the investigation report dated January 12, 1962 could supply evidentiary proof of death for the award.
- Whether the report proved death or only confirmed disappearance under circumstances of uncertainty.
- Whether the report was competent evidence given that it was not presented at any hearing and was not subject to examination and rebuttal as contemplated by the Workmen’s Compensation Law.
- Whether, considering the lapse of more than four years, Demetrio Pepito could be presumed dead under Article 391(3) of...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)