G.R. No. 179382 - Spouses Mamaril vs. Boy Scouts of the Philippines

The plaintiff, Jacinto Canete, was a carpenter employed by the defendant, Insular Lumber Co., Inc.
He served in the company for six years and earned a daily wage of P2, amounting to P12 per week.
His work involved making wood patterns used in the foundry department of the defendant’s sawmill.

On March 13, 1931, while operating an electric machine used for planing wood, the wood piece he held slipped.
As a result, his right hand came into contact with the sharp edge of the machine.
The accident caused him to lose his thumb, first finger, and the first phalange of his middle finger.

The plaintiff filed his claim for compensation under Act No. 3428 (Workmen’s Compensation Act), as amended by Act No. 3812.
The claim was mailed on May 14, 1931, which fell within the two-month period specified by the statute.
The defendant argued that the claim should be considered filed only upon submission to the employer and not by the mailing date, but the court applied the rule that the post-office registry receipt showing the mailing date is considered as the filing date.

The claim for compensation was filed beyond the two-month period as required by law.
The plaintiff did not receive the injury in the performance of his employment, and the injury was due to his own negligence.
The trial court erred in denying the defendant’s motion for a new trial.

The trial court erroneously awarded compensation solely under section 17 (for permanent partial disability) without allowing compensation under section 14 (for temporary total disability).
The award was structured as weekly installments (P6 per week for 8212 weeks) rather than a full lump-sum payment of the compensation due under section 17.

The plaintiff was confined to the hospital for 41 days following the accident.
Evidence established that he had been receiving a weekly salary of P12 until the accident.
The accident occurred while he was performing his designated work tasks, including following orders from his superiors like Inocentes Anebe and Mr. Franz.

Whether the compensation claim filed by the plaintiff was timely filed within the two-month period as required by the Workmen’s Compensation Act.
Whether the filing date should be taken as the date of mailing as evidenced by the post-office registry receipt.

Whether the injury occurred during the performance of the plaintiff's duties as a carpenter.
Whether the injury was attributable to the plaintiff’s own negligence or resulted from the employer’s operations and orders.

Whether compensation should only cover the permanent partial disability (as provided under section 17) or also include compensation for temporary total disability (as provided under section 14).
Whether the method of awarding compensation in weekly installments was appropriate or if a lump-sum payment was required.
Whether the inability or delay in paying compensation constituted grounds for invoking section 22 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, which allows for the demand of the whole balance in such cases.

Whether the trial court erred in denying the defendant’s motion for a new trial based on the issues raised.