Case Digest (G.R. No. 254976)
Facts:
Marciano Lamco was employed by Alvaro J. Barreto Enterprises as furniture designer-production supervisor (April 16, 1974) and suffered a stroke on December 5, 1974, after which he was confined until January 25, 1975. He later sought resumption of work but was refused on the ground that his position and workload might induce a recurrence. He filed a claim for compensation on March 7, 1975; the Acting Referee (Regional Office No. 4) allowed compensation on October 28, 1975, while the Workmen’s Compensation Commission reversed and dismissed the claim for lack of an employer-employee relationship in a decision dated January 22, 1976.The Commission’s ruling was based on the employer’s position that Lamco had resigned effective November 9, 1974. Lamco’s petition for review was filed after an extension but without proper verification, and he did not file a notice of appeal with the Commission before filing the petition.
Issues:
- Whether Lamco’s failure to file a notice of appeal with
Case Digest (G.R. No. 254976)
Facts:
- Parties and employment relationship
- Petitioner Marciano Lamco was employed by respondent firm Alvaro J. Barreto Enterprises on April 16, 1974 as its furniture designer-production supervisor.
- Petitioner received a monthly salary of P800.00.
- Petitioner worked six (6) days a week.
- Petitioner’s job required designing furniture, supervising the purchase of correct raw materials, making and keeping inventory of purchases and other supplies, and ensuring quality-controlled finished products.
- Work-related illness and medical confinement
- On December 5, 1974, petitioner suffered a stroke.
- Petitioner was rushed to Jose Reyes Memorial Hospital for emergency treatment.
- Petitioner was later transferred to University of Santo Tomas Hospital.
- Petitioner was confined from December 7, 1974 to January 25, 1975.
- The Physician’s Report diagnosed “Cerebral Infarction, Right”.
- The General Remarks in the report stated:
- There was a sudden onset of left hemiparesis (paralysis) with slight slurring of speech.
- There was no loss of consciousness.
- There was no seizure.
- The onset occurred on December 5, 1974.
- Petitioner was found to be hypertensive and was treated as such and underwent physiotherapy.
- Return to work and alleged refusal
- After petitioner recovered, he sought to resume working with respondent firm.
- Respondent firm refused on the ground that the pressure of petitioner’s work and position might induce a recurrence of his illness.
- Filing of compensation claim and employer’s controversion
- On March 7, 1975, petitioner filed a claim for compensation benefits before the Workmen’s Compensation Section, Regional Office No. 4 in Manila.
- On May 13, 1975, respondent firm filed an Employer’s Report denying liability.
- Respondent firm alleged lack of employer-employee relationship at the time petitioner suffered his stroke on December 5, 1974.
- Respondent firm asserted that petitioner resigned effective November 9, 1974 pursuant to a letter of resignation dated October 30, 1974.
- Decisions of the Acting Referee and the Workmen’s Compensation Commission
- On October 28, 1975, Acting Referee Gregorio C. Calasan allowed petitioner’s compensation claim.
- Acting Referee denied reimbursement of medical expenses because petitioner allegedly failed to show receipts or proof.
- Acting Referee’s dispositive portion directed respondent to pay:
- P6,000.00 as compensation pursuant to Sections 14 and 15 of the Act.
- P300.00 as attorney’s fee pursuant to Section 31 of the Act.
- P61.00 as decision fee pursuant to Section 55 of the Act.
- Respondent firm’s motion for reconsideration was denied.
- On January 22, 1976, the Workmen’s Compensation Commission rendered the appealed decision reversing the Acting Referee.
- The Commission’s dispositive portion dismissed petitioner’s claim for lack of employer-employee relationship.
- The Commission’s dismissal effectively denied petitioner’s entitlement to the compensation previously allowed.
- Petition for review to the Supreme Court and procedural posture
- On April 23, 1976, two days after the expiration of the extension granted to petitioner to file his petition for review, petitioner filed the present petition.
- The petition lacked proper verification because it was not subscribed and sworn to before a notary public.
- By resolution dated July 16, 1976, the Court treated the petition as a special civil action.
- The Court first addressed a jurisdictional issue regarding perfection of petitioner’s appeal:
- petitioner did not file any notice of appeal with the Commission; and
- petitioner did not file a properly verified petition for review within the extension period.
- Evidence relied upon by the Court on employment continuity
- The Court found petitioner’s alleged resignation not accepted and found that petitioner continued working until December 5, 1974, based on documentary evidence identified as:
- “Annex B”: xerox copy of Social Security and Medicare Contributions Payment Return filed by “Employer A. J. Barreto Enterprises” for the period covering half of April, 1974 up to the whole month of November 1974.
- “Annex C”: xerox copy of the Sickness Notification SSS form, Part III of which was...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Jurisdictional and procedural issues
- Whether petitioner properly perfected his appeal to the Court where:
- petitioner did not file a notice of appeal with the Commission; and
- petitioner filed a petition for review lacking proper verification and filed it after the expiration of the extension granted.
- Substantive issues on compensability and employer-employee relationship
- Whether the Commission erred in finding lack of employer-employee relationship on the theory that petitioner resigned effective November 9, 1974.
- Whether petitioner’s stroke was compensable because it supervened in the course of employment, given the medical characterization involving hypertension.
- Whether respondent firm’s untimely notice of controversion affected compensability and barred defenses.
- Extent of disability benefits
- Whether petitioner was e...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)