Title
Victory Shipping Lines, Inc. vs. Workmen's Compensation Commission
Case
G.R. No. L-9268
Decision Date
Nov 28, 1959
Employee presumed dead after jumping from burning vessel; employer's appeal denied due to procedural noncompliance and lack of proof of negligence.

Case Digest (G.R. No. L-9268)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Incident and Circumstances
    • On February 23, 1954, Pedro Icong, an employee of Victory Shipping Lines, Inc. (the petitioner), was asleep on board the tatter's vessel, M/V "Miss Leyte."
    • The vessel caught fire, which awoke Pedro Icong, prompting him to jump overboard.
    • After jumping, Pedro Icong was not heard from again, leading to the conclusion that he likely perished in the incident.
  • Employment Details and Dependents
    • Pedro Icong was unmarried and received a daily wage of P4.00, with additional meal benefits estimated at P1.20.
    • His father, Juan Icong, who was a partial dependent, later became involved in the claim for death compensation.
  • Filing of the Claim
    • On April 30, 1954, respondent Juan Icong filed a notice of claim for death compensation against both Victory Shipping Lines, Inc. and the Workmen’s Compensation Commission.
    • The petitioner only reported the accident to the Commission on August 17, 1954, which was beyond the prescribed period.
  • Award and Subsequent Appeal
    • The Workmen’s Compensation Commission rendered an award in favor of Juan Icong amounting to P2,038.40, in addition to P200.00 for burial expenses and P20.00 as legal fees.
    • Victory Shipping Lines, Inc. appealed the award, raising three points of law related to the application of legal presumptions, procedural notice, and the nature of Pedro Icong’s actions during the incident.

Issues:

  • Application of the Presumption of Death Under Article 391 of the Civil Code
    • Whether Article 391, which requires a person to be missing for at least four years to be presumed dead, should have been applied in determining Pedro Icong’s death.
    • The petitioner argued that since Pedro was missing only a few months, the legal presumption of death did not exist.
  • Notice and Hearing under Section 49 of Republic Act No. 772
    • Whether the employer’s right to notice and a hearing—provided under Section 49—was violated because the petitioner was not served any notice for a hearing regarding the claim.
    • The petitioner contended that its substantive rights were affected by not having an opportunity to contest the claim.
  • Gross Negligence by Pedro Icong
    • Whether Pedro Icong’s act of jumping overboard constituted gross negligence that could bar the right to claim compensation.
    • The petitioner maintained that a prudent person, when faced with the danger of a burning vessel, would have sought alternative means (e.g., life saver, life raft, or awaiting instructions), thereby implying that his action showed a rash disregard of safety measures.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.