Case Summary (G.R. No. 225744)
Notice of Claim and Award
On April 30, 1954, Juan Icong filed a notice of claim for death compensation with the Workmen's Compensation Commission, asserting that Pedro had died due to the fire. The petitioner did not report the incident to the Commission until August 17, 1954. The Commission evaluated the case and awarded Juan Icong a total of P2,038.40, along with P200.00 for burial expenses and P20.00 in legal fees. The petitioner subsequently appealed the award.
Grounds for Appeal
In its appeal, the petitioner presented three primary legal arguments. First, it claimed that the Workmen’s Compensation Commission failed to apply Article 391 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, which outlines the presumption of death. The petitioner argued that this provision requires a person to be unheard of for four years before being presumed dead, asserting that, since Pedro had only been missing for a few months, there was insufficient basis for an award.
Lack of Notice and Hearing
The second point raised by the petitioner was that it was denied its right to notice and a hearing regarding the claim. The petitioner contended that this error impeded its ability to defend itself adequately, calling into question the jurisdiction of the Commission's decision.
Allegations of Gross Negligence
The third argument posited by the petitioner was that Pedro Icong exhibited gross negligence in jumping overboard in a situation where a prudent person would seek safety through alternative means, such as a life raft. The petitioner maintained that this act constituted a failure to take necessary precautions, thereby barring compensation.
Application of Presumption of Death
The Supreme Court evaluated the arguments raised by the petitioner. The Court noted that the presumption of death under Article 391 does not apply in cases where the circumstances surrounding the individual's disappearance are known—specifically, where there is evidence of imminent peril. In this situation, the fate of the M/V "Miss Leyte" was not unknown; it was destroyed by fire, and Pedro Icong's actions—jumping overboard—necessitated the application of the rule regarding the preponderance of evidence rather than the presumption of death.
Evidence and Inference of Death
In its analysis, the Court referred to precedents, including a previous case, which supported the inference of death when a person is last seen in a life-threatening situation. The Court determined that a diligent search for Pedro was made but established that the circumstances allowed for an inference of his immediate death, reinforcing the Commission's award to Juan Icong.
Jurisdictional Issues
Regarding the claim of inadequate notice and hearing, the Court found that the petitioner failed to submit the required employer's report within the statutory period. Consequently, it forfeit
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 225744)
Case Background
- The case involves Pedro Icong, an employee of Victory Shipping Lines, Inc., who was aboard the vessel M/V "Miss Leyte" when a fire broke out on February 23, 1954.
- Pedro Icong was awakened by the fire and subsequently jumped overboard; he has not been heard from since.
- He was unmarried, earning a daily wage of P4.00, with meals valued at P1.20. His father, Juan Icong, was identified as a partial dependent.
Procedural History
- On April 30, 1954, Juan Icong filed a notice of claim for death compensation with the Workmen’s Compensation Commission.
- Victory Shipping Lines, Inc. reported the incident to the Commission on August 17, 1954.
- The Commission awarded Juan Icong a total of P2,258.40, which included P2,038.40 for death compensation, P200.00 for burial expenses, and P20.00 as legal fees.
- Victory Shipping Lines, Inc. appealed the Commission's decision to the Supreme Court.
Points of Law Raised by the Petitioner
- The petitioner raised three main points in its appeal:
- Application of Article 391 of the Civil Code: The petitioner argued that the Commission failed to apply Article 391, which requires a person to be unheard of for four years before being presumed dead.
- Lack of Notice and Hearing: The petitioner claimed it did not receive notice of any hearing regarding the claim, which it argued affected its substantive rights and rendered the decision without jurisdiction.
- Allegation of Gross Negligence: