G.R. No. L-43389 - Uy vs. Workmen's Compensation Commission

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-43389)

Factual Background

On the evening of September 27, 1974, decedent Ki Lam Uy, also known as Vicente Uy, was found murdered at the farm house (referred to as the bodega) of private respondent Lucy Perez at Sitio Agay-ayan, Barrio Tugbong, Kananga, Leyte. Petitioners asserted that Ki Lam Uy had long rendered services as an overseer, machine operator, cashier and general utility man for the rice mill business operated by the late Chua Lim and by private respondent. Petitioners alleged that the decedent and his son Reynaldo assisted in the rice mill operations and that the decedent resided at the farm house adjacent to the mill.

Initial Claim and Administrative Award

On November 15, 1974, petitioners filed a Notice and Claim for Compensation in Death Cases before Regional Office No. 9, Department of Labor. For failure to submit an Employer's Report of Accident or Sickness, the Acting Chief of the Workmen's Compensation Unit processed the claim ex parte and on December 27, 1974 issued an Award granting death compensation of P6,000.00 under Section 8(b) of the Act, burial expenses of P200.00, an additional P3,000.00 under Section 4-A for safety violations and other statutory breaches, P91.00 to the Workmen's Compensation Fund under Section 55, and attorney's fees of P450.00 under Section 31.

Motion for Reconsideration and Reopening for Hearing

Private respondent's counsel filed a motion for extension and thereafter a motion for reconsideration, contending among other things that the death was not work-connected and that the respondent had been denied due process by the ex parte award. The Acting Chief granted reconsideration and set the case for hearing on April 30, 1975. Hearings proceeded and, after several sessions, the Hearing Officer rendered a decision on October 28, 1975 substantially reviving the December 27, 1974 Award while stating that a hearing with notice to the parties had been conducted to determine compensability.

Elevation to the Commission and Its Decision

Private respondent moved for reconsideration from the Hearing Officer's decision. The motion was denied and the records were elevated to the Workmen's Compensation Commission pursuant to Section 4, Rule 19. On February 23, 1976, the Commission reversed the Hearing Officer and dismissed the claim primarily on the ground that the Commission found no substantial proof that decedent was an employee of Lucy Perez. The Commission also noted that the rice mill allegedly operated by private respondent was not duly registered and that the business was within a nationalized industry, rendering employment of an alien penalized under law.

Petition for Review and Procedural Objections

Petitioners sought certiorari review in the Supreme Court. Private respondent objected to the petition on the ground that it was not verified by the claimants but by counsel. The Court rejected that objection as a mere formal defect, citing precedent that verification by counsel constitutes substantial compliance with Rule 7, Sec. 6 of the Rules of Court and that lack of personal verification is not jurisdictional when the records otherwise support the allegations.

Availability of Certiorari Despite an Appeal Remedy

Private respondent argued that the petition impermissibly raised factual findings of the Commission that were reviewable by appeal, not by certiorari. The Court held that certiorari remains available when public policy or broader interests of justice require it, and that enforcement of the Workmen's Compensation Act, as amended, a remedial and humanitarian statute, warranted extraordinary review in this case.

Employer-Employee Relationship: Evidence and Probative Weight

The central issue was whether decedent was an employee of Lucy Perez. The Court found the record replete with evidence of employment: testimony and documents showed a rice mill established in 1972, private respondent's admission that she had four employees, the long service of decedent to the rice mill and to the late Chua Lim with a weekly salary of P70.00, and the presence of the decedent at the farm house near the mill. The Court gave significant probative weight to the police spot report prepared by Patrolman Amador Profetana on the day of the crime, which identified decedent as "an overseer of Lucy Perez" and reported that he was entrusted with money for buying palay and was killed in the course of the attempted robbery. The Court held that the police report was admissible under Section 1(d), Rule 16 of the Commission Rules and under administrative practice as reflected in the Labor Manual, and that such contemporaneous statements carried particular credibility because they were made when collusion or motive to fabricate was unlikely.

Rejection of Employer's Biased Testimony and Inference of Continued Employment

The Court discounted the testimony of witnesses favorable to private respondent on grounds of bias: Nonito On Sanchez, the respondent's stepson, and Thomas Un, a tenant, had shown partiality and had interests inconsistent with impartial testimony. The Court concluded that the Commission erred in preferring those biased testimonies over the police report and the other evidence showing the decedent's continuous service and recognition by private respondent, including the fact that respondent defrayed burial-related payments totaling P4,050.00.

Work-Connection and the Bunkhouse Rule

Respondent contended that murder outside of working hours was not compensable. The Court rejected that argument. It found that the decedent's duties as overseer required his presence at the farm house and that the so-called bunkhouse rule applied: where the employee is required to reside on employer premises or in quarters furnished by the employer, injuries or death occurring there are compensable as arising out of and in the course of employment regardless of the hour. The Court cited prior jurisprudence applying that doctrine to analogous facts.

Failure to Seasonably Controvert and Waiver of Defenses

The Court found, as did the Hearing Officer, that private respondent failed to file a timely controversion as mandated by Section 45, paragraph 2 of the Act. The Court held that such failure constituted a renunciation of the employer's right to controvert the claim and a waiver of non-jurisdictional defenses, applying authorities that such procedural default precludes reliance on substantive defenses that could have been raised in a timely answer.

Relief Ordered and Monetary Adjustments

The Supreme Court reversed and set aside the Commission's decision. It ordered private respondent to pay petitioners the sum of P3,000.00 as death benefits, representing the P6,000.0

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. L-43389)

Parties and Posture

Glenia Uy filed this petition for review on certiorari for and in behalf of her minor siblings Reynaldo, Maria Elena (Marilen), and Conchita as claimants below.
The Workmen's Compensation Commission was respondent below and was joined by private respondent Lucy Perez, the alleged employer.
The petition assailed the Commission's decision reversing the Hearing Officer's award that had found compensability for the death of the claimants' father, Ki Lam Uy.
The Court reviewed the records of proceedings before the Regional Office No. 9, Department of Labor and the subsequent elevation of the case to the Commission.

Key Facts

At about 7:30 P.M. on September 27, 1974, Ki Lam Uy was killed by robbers at the farm house (bodega) belonging to Lucy Perez at Sitio Agay-ayan, Barrio Tugbong, Kananga, Leyte.
Claimants filed a Notice and Claim for Compensation on November 15, 1974 before Regional Office No. 9 seeking death benefits from Lucy Perez.
The Acting Chief of the Workmen's Compensation Unit issued an Award on December 27, 1974 granting P6,000.00 death benefits and P200.00 burial expenses, plus P3,000.00 under Section 4-A for safety-order violations, P91.00 to the Fund under Section 55, and P450.00 attorney's fees under Section 31.
Lucy Perez paid P4,050.00 to the heirs consisting of P3,000.00 cash, P750.00 for the tomb, and P300.00 for the priest after the killing.

Procedural History

A copy of the claim was sent to Lucy Perez on December 10, 1974 with a request to submit an Employer's Report by Workmen's Compensation Form No. 3.
Lucy Perez failed to file a timely Employer's Report and the December 27, 1974 Award issued after claim processing ex parte.
Lucy Perez moved for reconsideration and after the Acting Chief granted reconsideration, hearings on the merits were held and a Hearing Officer's decision of October 28, 1975 substantially revived the December 27, 1974 Award.
The case was elevated to the Workmen's Compensation Commission, which on February 23, 1976 reversed the Hearing Officer and absolved Lucy Perez on the ground that Ki Lam Uy was not her employee.
Petitioners thereafter filed the present petition for review on certiorari in this Court.

Issues Presented

Whether the petition was fatally defective for being verified by counsel rather than by the claimants.
Whether certiorari was an available remedy to review factual findings of the Commission.
Whether an employer-employee relationship existed between Lucy Perez and Ki Lam Uy.
Whether the killing of Ki Lam Uy was compensable as arising out of and in the course of employment.
Whether Lucy Perez waived her right to controvert the claim by failing to timely file an answer under Section 45.

Petitioners' Contentions

Petitioners contended that the verification by their counsel was sufficient under the rules and existing precedents.
Petitioners maintained that the police investigation and eyewitness testimony established Ki Lam Uy as the overseer and machine operator of Lucy Perez's rice mill.
Petitioners argued that the killing occurred on premises where the deceased was required to stay and therefore was compensable under the bunkhouse rule.
Petitioners asserted that Lucy Perez failed to seasonably controvert the claim in violation of Section 45, paragraph 2 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, as amended.

Respondent's Contentions

Lucy Perez argued that the petition was defective for lack of proper verification by the