Title
Aboitiz Shipping Corp. vs. Pepito
Case
G.R. No. L-21335
Decision Date
Dec 17, 1966
Crew member Demetrio Pepito disappeared during a voyage in 1961. His wife claimed death benefits; employer contested, citing off-duty disappearance. Court ruled failure to timely dispute admitted disappearance, not death, and remanded for due process hearing on presumption of death under Civil Code.
death benefits
crew member
disappeared at sea
A

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-21335)

Factual Background

Between the night of November 30, 1961 and the early morning of December 1, 1961, Demetrio Pepito disappeared from m/v P. Aboitiz while the vessel was on voyage. On December 26, 1961, Aboitiz Shipping Corporation received a letter dated December 21, 1961 from Vivencia Ando Pepito. The letter notified the employer that one of its employees, Demetrio Pepito, a crew member, was reported missing as per the deck log book while the vessel was navigating from Surigao to Tandag, and it stated the respondents’ belief that he was already dead, after a diligent search had proved futile.

On January 12, 1962, the respondents filed with Regional Office No. 8, Department of Labor, Cebu City a notice and claim for compensation, seeking death benefits. The claim described the circumstances as follows: while the vessel was navigating from Surigao to Tandag, the deceased was lost or reported missing as shown by the deck log.

Employer’s Attempted Controversion

After receiving on February 15, 1962 a letter enclosing the claim, the employer, on February 16, 1962, sent to the same office the employer’s report of accident or sickness. In that report, the employer controverted the claim for compensation and alleged its version of the incident: Demetrio Pepito was found missing on December 1, 1961, and the employer stated that Pepito disappeared while off duty when the ship was near Bucas Grande Island on a calm sea and good weather. The employer added that it did not know whether he had purposely jumped and swam ashore.

Administrative Award Without Hearing

On March 21, 1962, without hearing, the Regional Administrator issued an award for death benefits to the respondents. The award rested on the ground that the claimant’s right to compensation had not been controverted within the period provided by law. The employer’s motion for reconsideration was denied. The employer then sought review from the Workmen’s Compensation Commission, which affirmed the award in a decision dated March 8, 1963. The employer’s further reconsideration was thwarted by the Commission’s en banc resolution dated April 5, 1963.

Core Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Court accepted as undisputed that the employer came to know of Demetrio Pepito’s disappearance on December 1, 1961, which the employer acknowledged in its report of accident or sickness. The employer also admitted receiving on December 26, 1961 the respondents’ letter notifying it that Demetrio Pepito was reported missing on that date as shown by the deck log.

The Court held that the employer’s purported controversion filed on February 16, 1962 was beyond the periods set in the applicable law and Commission rules, specifically fourteen days from the date of accident or ten days from knowledge thereof. This raised the next problem: the scope of the non-controversion consequence in compensation cases.

The Court explained that although the employer’s failure to timely controvert could have procedural consequences, non-controversion did not automatically convert the claimant’s pleading into an admission of conclusions of law or the existence of facts that were, at the time, debatable. It thus addressed whether the respondents’ notice and claim, which alleged only that the worker was “lost or reported missing,” was sufficient to treat death as established solely because the employer did not controvert within the legal period.

Parties’ Positions on Non-controversion and Death

The Court reviewed the content of the respondents’ notice and claim. It stated simply that while the vessel was navigating, “the herein deceased was lost or reported missing” and that the claim was filed on January 12, 1962, about forty-two days after the incident. At that time, the Court found that no presumption of death existed and that the boat had not been lost. The Court emphasized that the situation was uncertain: Demetrio Pepito could have transferred to another vessel, could have swum to safety, could have died, or could have taken his own life. Because legal implications were significant—particularly on right to compensation and related civil consequences—courts should not easily conclude that the missing person was dead.

The Court further clarified the legal meaning of non-controversion in compensation cases. It reasoned that non-controversion, analogous to the effect of admissions in ordinary civil pleadings, meant admission of facts, not conclusions of law. Applied here, the mere failure to controvert the statement that Demetrio Pepito was believed “dead” or “deceased” because he was “lost” or “reported missing” did not amount to an admission that he was actually dead. Instead, it admitted only that he was lost or missing.

Due Process Defect and Evidentiary Concerns

The Court held that the administrative award nonetheless directed the employer to pay compensation without inquiry into the fact and circumstances of death. It characterized this as a violation of the employer’s right to due process, citing Section 1(1), Article III of the 1987 Constitution, which provides that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Because the award had been issued before the employer was given an opportunity to be heard on the debatable fact and circumstances of death, the Court held the award could not stand.

The Court rejected the Commission’s attempt to downgrade the employer’s due process argument by reference to a purported investigation report dated January 12, 1962, made by Anselmo M. Morales, a constabulary sergeant. That report allegedly stated that a watchman noticed the worker was not in the sleeping quarters, that a thorough search failed to locate him, that the search was abandoned after no trace or body was found, and that no one knew what happened to him because he disappeared on a rough sea. The Court held that the report did not prove death and, at best, confirmed disappearance coupled with the fact that nothing was known. It also noted that the report was not brought up in any hearing, and it treated the report as hearsay not elevated above twice-removed evidence.

The Court relied on Section 7 of the Workmen’s Compensation Law, which provided that ex parte evidence received by the Commissioner must be reduced to writing and parties in interest must have the opportunity to examine and rebut it. As the employer was not afforded even the chance to examine or contradict the report, the Court deemed it of no probative value.

Employer-Employee Relationship and the Timing of Disappearance

The Court acknowledged that the employer-employee relationship was conceded and that the event arose out of and occurred in the course of employment. It held that it did not matter that the disappearance occurred while the worker was alleged by the employer to have been off duty. The Court reasoned that the incident happened during a sea voyage, and the worker had to be on the vessel.

Practical Development: Presumption of Death After Four Years

The Court then addressed the passage of time. From the night of November 30, 1961 to the time of the decision, more than four years had elapsed. For that reason, the Court stated that the matter could now fall within paragraph 3 of Article 391 of the Civil Code, which presumes a person dead “for all purposes” when the person has been in danger of death under other circumstances and his existence has not been known for four years. The Court held that, on the known facts—lost or missing while the vessel was navigating—Demetrio Pepito could have been in danger of death. However, it required evidence that his existence had not been known for four years or thereafter, and it required that the proper factual circumstances be determined.

Legal Basis and Disposition

The Court therefore set aside the Commission’s decision dated March 8, 1963 and its en banc resolution dated April 5, 1963. It directed the return of t

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms