Case Digest (G.R. No. L-43389)
Facts:
Glenia Uy, for and in behalf of her minors, Reynaldo, Maria Elena (Marilen), and Conchita, all surnamed Uy, v. The Workmen's Compensation Commission and Lucy Perez, G.R. No. L-43389, April 28, 1980, the Supreme Court First Division, Makasiar, J., writing for the Court.Petitioners are the children and heirs of the deceased Ki Lam Uy (also known as Vicente Uy). On the evening of September 27, 1974 Ki Lam Uy was killed by robbers at the farm house (bodega) of private respondent Lucy Perez in Kananga, Leyte. On November 15, 1974 petitioners filed a Notice and Claim for Compensation in Death Cases with Regional Office No. 9, Department of Labor, Tacloban City, seeking death benefits under the Workmen’s Compensation Act.
A copy of the claim was served on private respondent on December 10, 1974 with a requirement to submit Employer’s Report (Workmen’s Compensation Form No. 3). For failure to file the Employer’s Report, the Acting Chief of the Workmen’s Compensation Unit issued an Award dated December 27, 1974 granting death benefits of P6,000 plus P200 burial expenses, imposed P3,000 under Section 4‑A for safety-order and nationality-law violations, directed payment to the Workmen’s Compensation Fund and awarded attorney’s fees under Section 31.
Private respondent moved for extension and for reconsideration, asserting inter alia that the death was not work‑connected and that she had not failed to controvert the claim. The Acting Chief granted reconsideration and set the case for hearing; hearings were held and on October 28, 1975 the Hearing Officer rendered a decision substantially reviving the December 27 Award. Private respondent filed another motion for reconsideration which was denied on November 28, 1975 and the case was elevated to the Workmen’s Compensation Commission (WCC).
On February 23, 1976 the WCC reversed the Hearing Officer, finding that Ki Lam Uy was not an employee of private responden...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Is the petition fatally defective for lack of verification by the claimants?
- Was certiorari a proper remedy despite the availability of appeal?
- Was there an employer-employee relationship between Ki Lam Uy and Lucy Perez?
- Was the killing of Ki Lam Uy compensable as arising out of and in the course of employment (work‑connected)?
- Did private respondent seasonably controvert the claim so as to preserve defense...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)