Case Summary (G.R. No. L-27489)
Factual Background
LEONORA TANTOY Vda. de Macabenta and the deceased, Conrado Macabenta, had lived together as husband and wife for about three months prior to his vehicular accident on Sept. 13, 1961; they were lawfully married at San Pedro Hospital on Sept. 14, 1961 while the deceased remained hospitalized and he died on Sept. 29, 1961. The claimant gave birth on April 8, 1962 to a daughter, Raquel Tantoy Macabenta, who was the posthumous child of the deceased. The deceased was a laborer in the respondent’s sawmill at Manay, Panabo, Davao, about 48 kilometers from his domicile in Davao City. The Commission found that, contrary to the respondent’s denial, the respondent did furnish transportation to some employees.
Procedural History
The Workmen’s Compensation Commission, through a decision by Chairman Nieves Baens del Rosario dated Sept. 27, 1966, reversed the finding of the acting referee of its regional office in Davao City, awarded compensation of P2,708.00 to the claimant widow for herself and in behalf of her minor child, and allowed attorney’s fees of P270.80. The respondent sought review in this Court, and the petition was given due course because the legal question presented was one of first impression.
Issues Presented
The principal legal question was whether a widow whose marriage to the decedent occurred after the accident but before his death, and a child born posthumously of that relationship, qualify as “dependents” within the meaning of Section 9 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act. A subsidiary factual issue was whether the accident arose out of and in the course of employment and whether respondent furnished transportation.
The Parties’ Contentions
The respondent contended that the claimant-wife and the posthumous child were not entitled to compensation because the marriage occurred after the accident and because the child was conceived and born after the father’s death, and it denied liability by disputing that it provided transportation or that the accident arose out of employment. The claimants and the Commission maintained that the claimant was the decedent’s widow at the time of death and that the posthumous child was a dependent for purposes of the Act; the Commission also found that the respondent provided transportation and that the accident was work-related.
Findings of the Commission
The Commission found as facts that the deceased and the claimant had lived together as husband and wife for about three months prior to the accident, that the general manager of the respondent aided the hospital marriage on Sept. 14, 1961, that the posthumous daughter was born on April 8, 1962, and that testimonial evidence supported the conclusion that the respondent furnished transportation. On such findings, the Commission awarded the stated compensation and attorney’s fees.
Ruling of the Court
The Court affirmed the decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission and dismissed the respondent’s petition for review. The Court ordered costs against the respondent.
Legal Basis and Reasoning
The Court held that the literal language of Section 9 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act included the claimant as a dependent because she was the widow at the time of the decedent’s death, even though the marriage occurred after the accident. The Court relied on the Civil Code provisions, Arts. 40 and 41, which treat the conceived child as considered born for all purposes favorable to it provided the child is born alive, and concluded that the posthumous daughter qualified as a dependent. The Court applied the doctrine that statutes should be construed to effectuate their manifest purpose and that no construction should be adopted that would defeat the legislative object, citing precedents such as Ty Sue v. Hord, United States v. Toribio, and Riera v. Palmaroli. The Court further invoked the constitutional mandate to extend protection to labor and the controlling construction in Automotive Parts & Equipment Company, Inc. v. Lingad that a remedial statute implementing a constitutional command must be construed to avoid conflict with fundamental law. As to disputed facts and the contention that the accident did not arise out of employment, the Court declined to disturb the Commission’s findings because they were supported by substantial evidence and because the Court will not overturn factual determinations in certiorari appeals absent clear showing of fa
...continue reading
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. L-27489)
Parties and Procedural Posture
- Leonora Tantoy Vda. de Macabenta, for herself and in behalf of her minor child, Raquel Macabenta, Claimants-Appellees filed a claim before the Workmen's Compensation Commission for compensation for the death of Conrado Macabenta.
- Davao Stevedore Terminal Company, Respondent-Appellant petitioned for review of the Commission's decision which had been given due course by the Supreme Court because it raised a question of first impression.
- The Workmen's Compensation Commission reversed the regional acting referee and awarded compensation and attorney's fees to the claimants.
- The Supreme Court heard the petition and affirmed the decision of the Workmen's Compensation Commission.
Key Factual Allegations
- Conrado Macabenta was a laborer in the sawmill of Davao Stevedore Terminal Company at Manay, Panabo, Davao, and he suffered a vehicular accident on September 13, 1961.
- The decedent died on September 29, 1961 while hospitalized at San Pedro Hospital in Davao City.
- The claimant and the decedent had been living together as husband and wife for about three months before the accident and were lawfully married on September 14, 1961 at the hospital.
- The claimant gave birth on April 8, 1962 to the decedent's posthumous daughter named Raquel Tantoy Macabenta.
- The Commission found that the respondent did furnish transportation for its employees despite the respondent's denial, and the decedent commuted some three times a week from his residence about 48 kilometers away.
Statutory Framework
- Section 9 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, Republic Act No. 3428 (1927) defines dependents to include a son or daughter under eighteen or incapable of supporting himself or herself and unmarried, and the widow only if she was living with the deceased or was actually dependent upon him, totally or partly.
- Civil Code Article 40 provides that birth determines personality but that the conceived child shall be considered born for all purposes that are favorable to it subject to specified conditions.
- Civil Code Article 41 provides that for civil purposes the fetus is considered born if it is alive at the time it is completely delivered from the mother's womb with exceptions for intra-uterine life of less than seven months.
- The decision invoked the constitutional principle requiring the extension of protection to labor and the social justice objectives behind legislative enactments.
Issues Presented
- Whether a widow whose marriage to the deceased occurred after the accident but before the deceased's death is a dependent within the meaning of the Workmen's Compensation Act.
- Whether the posthumous child conceived before the decedent's death is a dependent under the Act.
- Whether the fatal accident arose out of and in the course of the decedent's employment.
Parties' Contentions
- Respondent Davao Stevedore Terminal Company contended that the widow who married the decedent after the accident and the child born after the decedent's death should not be considered dependents under the Act.
- Respondents also contended that the ac