G.R. No. L-44108. July 31, 1978.
BENJAMIN Z. VILLANUEVA (deceased; substituted by wife BEATA TABAÑO), petitioner, vs. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, and the REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES (Land Transportation Commission), respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Benjamin Z. Villanueva, a former MV Registrar III with the Land Transportation Commission, was retired effective February 1, 1974, after being declared “totally and permanently disabled” by the GSIS at age 60. Two days post-retirement, on February 3, 1974, he was hospitalized for various illnesses including viral encephalomyelitis. He subsequently filed a claim for disability benefits under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. The Acting Referee awarded compensation, finding a contributory connection between his employment and the disease, as the respondent failed to dissociate this link.
The Office of the Solicitor General, counsel for the respondent Republic, received a copy of the Referee’s decision on December 16, 1975. Instead of filing a petition for review or motion for reconsideration within the 15-day reglementary period, the Republic filed a “Petition to Elevate Records for Relief from Judgment” with the Workmen’s Compensation Commission on January 17, 1976, alleging excusable negligence prevented a timely appeal. The Commission granted the petition and reversed the award, ruling that no employer-employee relationship existed when Villanueva fell ill, as he had already retired.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the respondent Commission validly acquired appellate jurisdiction to reverse the Acting Referee’s decision, given the Republic’s failure to perfect a timely appeal.

RULING

The Supreme Court reinstated the Acting Referee’s award, holding the Commission acted without jurisdiction. The Referee’s decision had become final and executory prior to the Commission’s review. The reglementary period for seeking reconsideration or review was 15 days from receipt of the decision under Section 49 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act and the Commission’s rules. The Republic received notice on December 16, 1975, making its petition filed on January 17, 1976, clearly beyond this period.
While Rule 22 of the Commission’s Rules allows a petition for relief from judgment on grounds like excusable negligence, such relief requires strict compliance with sine qua non conditions. These include demonstrating that the negligence was excusable and that the petitioner possesses a meritorious defense. The Court found the trial attorney’s failure to act on the decision or even seek a postponement constituted pure, not excusable, negligence. The Office of the Solicitor General had multiple attorneys who could have attended to the matter. Consequently, the Republic’s petition for relief was insufficiently grounded. Since the Referee’s award was final, the Commission lacked authority to alter it. This resolution of the jurisdictional issue rendered moot the ancillary question regarding the substantive merits of the compensation claim. The final and executory award constitutes the law of the case.