Case Summary (G.R. No. 197550)
Factual Background
On August 23, 1951, at about 6:00 a.m. in Bo. Sumangga, Mogpog, Marinduque, Pedro Mamador and other laborers of Marinduque Iron Mines Agents, Inc. boarded a company truck driven by Procopio Macunat en route to the mine camp at Talantunan. While attempting to overtake another truck on a company road, the vehicle overturned and struck a coconut tree, resulting in Mamador's death and injuries to others. Macunat was later prosecuted in Criminal Case No. 1491, convicted, and ordered to indemnify the heirs, but the heirs did not participate in that prosecution and have not received the ordered indemnity.
Proceedings before the Workmen’s Compensation Commission
An investigation was conducted by the Commission and its referee. The Public Defender of Boac, Marinduque, summoned witnesses and took a sworn declaration from Geronimo Ma. Coll on May 29, 1953. The Commission, through its referee, furnished the company with a copy of that declaration and invited comment. On February 8, 1954, the referee conducted an investigation in which the company, through its general manager Mr. Eric Lenze and counsel, examined the records, reviewed the sworn declaration, and was given opportunity to rebut and present evidence. The referee awarded compensation to the heirs of Mamador. The Commissioner confirmed the referee’s award.
The Petitioner’s Contentions
Marinduque Iron Mines Agents, Inc. petitioned for certiorari, contesting only its right to pay compensation and raising two principal grounds. First, the petitioner alleged a denial of due process because it was not given the opportunity to cross-examine opposing witnesses. Second, the petitioner maintained that the claim was barred by Sec. 6 of the Workmen's Compensation Law because Macunat had been prosecuted and ordered to indemnify the heirs and because an alleged amicable settlement had been made between Macunat and the heirs.
The Commission’s and Respondents’ Position
The Commission's record showed that the petitioner received notice of investigatory proceedings, was supplied with the sworn declaration of Geronimo Ma. Coll, and was afforded an opportunity during the February 8, 1954 investigation to examine the records and present rebuttal evidence. The respondents relied on the award of the referee and the confirmation by the Commissioner that compensation was due to the heirs.
Legal Issues Presented
The Court framed the issues as whether the Commission’s procedures denied the petitioner an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses in violation of due process; whether the criminal prosecution and its indemnity or an alleged amicable settlement operated as an election of remedies or bar under Sec. 6 of Act 3428; and whether the deceased’s violation of an employer prohibition against riding haulage trucks constituted notorious negligence that would preclude recovery under the statute.
Procedural Due Process and Cross-Examination
The Court held that the petitioner was given adequate notice and an opportunity to examine and rebut the testimony taken by the Commission. The Court observed that Act 3428 permits the Commissioner or his referee to take testimony without notice provided such ex parte evidence is reduced to writing and the adverse party is afforded opportunity to examine and rebut it. The record showed that the petitioner had such opportunity during the referee's investigation of February 8, 1954. The petitioner did not demonstrate prejudice from any alleged failure to cross-examine earlier; thus, the Court found no denial of due process warranting annulment of the award.
Effect of Criminal Indemnity and Alleged Amicable Settlement under Section 6
Addressing the petitioner's contention under Sec. 6, the Court distinguished the criminal prosecution from a civil suit for damages. The Court noted that Criminal Case No. 1491 was not a civil action for damages and that the heirs did not intervene in that prosecution nor have they received the indemnity ordered against Macunat. The Court cited Nava v. lnchausti Co. and other authority to hold that an indemnity granted to heirs in a criminal prosecution of the third person does not relieve the employer of liability under the Workmen's Compensation Law. As to the asserted amicable settlement wherein Mamador's widow promised for 150 pesos to forego criminal prosecution, the Court reasoned that the promise pertained only to criminal prosecution and did not waive any civil claim for damages. The Court also observed that the widow's promise might not bind other heirs. Consequently, the alleged settlement did not operate as an election of remedies that would bar the compensation claim against the employer.
Employer Prohibition, Negligence, and Notorious Negligence
The Court examined whether the deceased's boarding of the haulage truck in violation of employer instruction constituted negligence per se or notorious negligence sufficient to bar recovery. The Court observed that violation of a rule promulgated by a commission or board is not negligence per se but may be evidence of negligence, citing authorities. The referee had not found that Mamador knew of the prohibition, and
...continue reading
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 197550)
Parties and Procedural Posture
- MARINDUQUE IRON MINES AGENTS, INC., Petitioner, sought certiorari review of a Commission order confirming a referee's award of compensation.
- THE WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION COMMISSION was respondent below and had affirmed the referee's award.
- THE HEIRS OF PEDRO MAMADOR were respondents and beneficiaries of the compensation award.
- The petition raised only the right to compensation and not the amount awarded.
- The judgment below was rendered by the Court under the name of Justice Bengzon.
Key Factual Allegations
- The deceased Pedro Mamador boarded a truck owned by the petitioner on August 23, 1951, at six a.m. in Bo. Sumangga, Mogpog, Marinduque, en route to the company's mine camp at Talantunan.
- The truck was driven by Procopio Macunat, an employee of the petitioner, and while attempting to overtake another truck it turned over and struck a coconut tree, causing Mamador's death and injuries to others.
- Procopio Macunat was prosecuted and convicted in Criminal Case No. 1491 and was ordered to indemnify the heirs, but no payment to the heirs had been made.
- An affidavit, described as an alleged amicable settlement, showed Mamador's widow accepted PHP 150 to forego criminal prosecution of Macunat.
Procedural History
- The Public Defender of Boac, Marinduque, conducted an investigation and obtained a sworn declaration from Geronimo Ma. Coll, one of the respondents.
- The referee took further testimony and allowed the petitioner to examine the records and to present rebuttal evidence in February 1954.
- The referee awarded compensation to the heirs, and the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner confirmed that award.
- MARINDUQUE IRON MINES AGENTS, INC. filed the present petition for certiorari to annul the Commissioner's order.
Issues Presented
- Whether the petitioner was denied the opportunity to cross-examine adverse witnesses in violation of its right to a fair hearing.
- Whether the award was barred by section 6 of the Workmen's Compensation Law because the heirs prosecuted and obtained indemnity from the third person or effected an amicable settlement.
- Whether the deceased's violation of the employer's prohibition against riding haulage trucks constituted notorious negligence precluding recovery under the Act.
Parties' Contentions
- The petitioner contended that it was deprived of the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses and thus of due process.
- The petitioner argued that the criminal prosecution and the alleged amicable settlement effected an election of remedies or otherwise barred recovery against the emp