G.R. No. L-30275 & L-30276. January 31, 1974.
CHEF PRODUCTS, INC., petitioner, vs. THE WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION and JUAN TORELLA and PEDRO TORELLA, respondents.

FACTS

Juan and Pedro Torella, laborers for Chef Products, Inc., filed separate claims for workmen’s compensation, alleging they contracted tuberculosis in the course of and aggravated by their employment. On September 5, 1968, Associate Commissioner Herminia Castelo-Sotto of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission awarded each claimant compensation for temporary total disability under Section 14 of the Act and an additional amount for non-scheduled disability under Section 18. Petitioner received a copy of this order on September 10, 1968.
On September 25, 1968, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, admitting liability under Section 14 but contesting the award under Section 18 and the non-application of the 8% discount for lump sum payment under Section 22. Commissioner Castelo-Sotto denied this motion on November 7, 1968, ruling it was filed out of time per the Commission’s rules. Petitioner then filed a motion for reconsideration en banc on November 11, 1968, which the full Commission denied on February 26, 1969, reiterating that the appeal was filed beyond the reglementary period.

ISSUE

Whether the Workmen’s Compensation Commission correctly denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration for having been filed out of time, thereby rendering the awards final and executory.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the Commission’s orders and denied the petition. The core legal principle is the mandatory and jurisdictional nature of the ten-day period to appeal an individual Commissioner’s decision to the Commission en banc via a motion for reconsideration. The Court, citing Manila Trading & Supply Co. v. WCC and Visitacion v. WCC, held that Rule 17, Section 1 of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission Rules explicitly provides this ten-day period from receipt of the order. Petitioner received the September 5, 1968, award on September 10, 1968, but filed its initial motion for reconsideration only on September 25, 1968, clearly beyond the deadline. The subsequent motion filed en banc on November 11, 1968, could not revive the lapsed right to appeal. Consequently, the award became final and executory, precluding any substantive review of the merits, including the challenge to the Section 18 award for non-scheduled disability. The Court thus found no need to address the assigned errors regarding the computation of benefits or the discount for lump sum payment.