G.R. No. L-28694 - Telephone Engineering and Service Co., Inc. vs. Workmen's Compensation Commission

The case originates from an award rendered on October 6, 1967, by the Acting Referee of Regional Office No. 4, Quezon City Sub-Regional Office, Workmen’s Compensation Section.
The award granted death benefits (P5,759.52) and burial expenses (P200.00) to the heirs of Pacifico L. Gatus, the deceased employee.
The award was rendered in favor of respondent Leonila S. Gatus and her minor children, who were dependents of the deceased.

Petitioner: Telephone Engineering & Service Company, Inc. (TESCO) is a domestic corporation engaged in manufacturing telephone equipment, with offices at Sheridan Street, Mandaluyong, Rizal.
Management includes Executive Vice-President and General Manager Jose Luis Santiago.
Sister Company: Utilities Management Corporation (UMACOR), which shares the same management and physical location as TESCO.
Employment of the Deceased:

On September 8, 1964, UMACOR employed Pacifico L. Gatus as Purchasing Agent.
On May 16, 1965, Gatus was detailed with TESCO; however, he later reported back to UMACOR on August 1, 1965.

On January 13, 1967, Gatus contracted an illness, and despite returning to work on May 10, 1967, he ultimately died on July 14, 1967, from “liver cirrhosis with malignant degeneration.”
The claim for compensation was based on the contention that the illness contracted was related to “regular occupation.”

On August 7, 1967, respondent Leonila S. Gatus filed the “Notice and Claim for Compensation” alleging that her husband was employed by TESCO.
On August 9, 1967, the Workmen’s Compensation Section transmitted the notice to TESCO and requested an Employer’s Report of Accident or Sickness.

The report was submitted with UMACOR indicated as the employer, signed by Jose Luis Santiago.
It admitted that the deceased contracted the illness “in regular occupation.”

TESCO, through its representative, admitted non-conformity to the initial award on October 27, 1967, contesting the causation of the illness as not being occupational.
Extensions were requested on November 6 and November 15, 1967, to file a Motion for Reconsideration and/or Petition to Set Aside Award.
A Motion for Reconsideration was eventually filed on November 18, 1967, citing an “honest mistake and/or excusable negligence” in the Employer’s Report and arguing that the illness was non-occupational.
The motion was denied by the Chief of Section of the Regional Office on December 28, 1967, on grounds that the alleged mistake was not excusable and that the award rested on both direct causation and aggravation theories.

An Order of execution was issued on January 28, 1968.
On February 3, 1968, TESCO filed an “Urgent Motion to Compel the Referee to Elevate Records to the Workmen’s Compensation Commission for Review.”
On February 17, 1968, the Provincial Sheriff of Rizal attached TESCO’s properties, scheduling their sale at public auction on February 26, 1968.
Prior to a compliance order by the Commission, TESCO filed the present Petition for Certiorari with Preliminary Injunction on February 22, 1968, seeking annulment of the award and an injunction against the sale of its properties.

TESCO contended that there was no employer-employee relationship between itself and the deceased, asserting that the deceased had been employed by UMACOR.
It argued that the Workmen’s Compensation Commission lacked jurisdiction to render a valid award against it and that this Court had jurisdiction to nullify the award.

In previous submissions (letter to the Acting Referee, Motion for Reconsideration, and Urgent Motion to Compel Elevation), TESCO consistently represented itself as the employer.
The new denial of an employer-employee relationship at the stage of filing the petition is a departure from its earlier position.

Whether the Workmen’s Compensation Commission possessed jurisdiction to render an award against TESCO given the alleged absence of an employer-employee relationship between TESCO and Pacifico L. Gatus.

Whether TESCO’s petition for Certiorari was prematurely filed, considering that it had not exhausted all available administrative remedies under the Rules of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission.

Whether TESCO should be estopped from now denying the employer-employee relationship since it had previously represented itself as the employer.
Whether a change of theory on appeal, specifically regarding the actual employer of the deceased, is permissible.