Case Digest (G.R. No. L-17362)
Facts:
Madrigal Shipping Co. v. Monica Melad, Francisca Siccuan, Juana Siccuan, Barbara Tuliao, Placida De La Cruz, Aparri Pilot's Association and Workmen's Compensation Commission, G.R. Nos. L-17362 and L-17367-69. February 28, 1963, the Supreme Court En Banc, Regala, J., writing for the Court.The S.S. "Cetus" was owned and operated by petitioner Madrigal Shipping Co., Inc. On November 25, 1955, after sailing approximately five miles from Aparri toward Manila, the ship returned to Aparri for an asserted rudder repair. The ship's captain sent a telegram to the ship's agent, Jua Siong Kong Ho, Inc., instructing: "PLEASE ADVISE PILOT WILL ENTER AGAIN FOR RUDDER REPAIR." The agent relayed the message to the Aparri Pilots' Association.
Responding, the pilots' association arranged for pilots to board the ship: Chief Pilot Primitivo Siccuan and District Pilot Francisco Ricerra boarded with the assistance of Filoteo Siccuan (sounder) and Domingo Batta (oarsman); Domingo Batta remained in the boat. At about 2:30 a.m. on November 26, heavy waves caused the S.S. "Cetus" to sink and the boat was lost; among the deceased were Primitivo Siccuan, Francisco Ricerra, Filoteo Siccuan and Domingo Batta.
Four claims for compensation were filed with the Workmen's Compensation Commission (WCC) against petitioner. Following the creation of Regional Offices under Reorganization Plan 20-A, the cases were transferred to Regional Office No. 2. After a hearing the regional office awarded the statutory maximum of P4,000.00 each to the heirs/dependents of Ricerra, Filoteo Siccuan and Primitivo Siccuan; P1,725.12 (including burial expenses) to the widow/dependent of Domingo Batta; and P141.00 to the office pursuant to Section 55 of the Act. Associate Commissioner Jose Sanchez affirmed, and the WCC sitting en banc likewise affirmed the awards.
Petitioner sought review in the Supreme Court by way of a petition for review, advancing seven assignments of error which the Court summarized around three principal contentions: (1) the hearing officer of Regional Office No. 2 lacked jurisdiction because Reorganization Plan 20-A is unconstitutional; (2) there was no employer-employee relationship be...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the hearing officer of Regional Office No. 2 have jurisdiction to hear these claims under Reorganization Plan 20-A?
- Were Primitivo Siccuan, Francisco Ricerra, Filoteo Siccuan and Domingo Batta employees of petitioner for purposes of the Workmen's Compensation Law?
- Were the claimants properly found to be dependents of the deceased under th...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)