G.R. No. L-9390; February 28, 1958
ADELINA SEVERO, ETC., petitioner, vs. HON. PANTALEON PELAYO, ETC., JULIO LASIAN and REMEDIOS PINEDA, respondents.

FACTS

On September 20, 1954, respondents Julio Lasian and Remedios Pineda, as dependents of their deceased son Jose C. Pineda who died while in the service of C. Ying Bakery (managed by petitioner Adelina Severo), were awarded compensation of P1,560 plus burial expenses not exceeding P100, less any amount already paid, by the Workmen’s Compensation Commission. This award became final and executory. The petitioner failed to pay the full award, leaving an unpaid balance. Consequently, on June 27, 1955, the respondents filed a petition in the Court of First Instance of Iloilo under Section 51 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act for an order of execution. On July 2, 1955, the court issued an order entering judgment for the award and issued a writ of execution. The petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration and to quash the writ, alleging lack of jurisdiction, lack of an exact executable amount, and lack of notification of the judgment. This motion was denied. The petitioner then filed a petition for certiorari. Meanwhile, on July 12, 1955, the respondents filed a motion in the lower court alleging partial payment and issues with the sheriff’s execution. After a hearing on July 15, 1955, the respondent judge amended the July 2 order, specifying the amount to be P1,060 plus P100 burial expenses (reflecting an admitted partial payment of P500). The petitioner attempted to appeal this amended order but did not perfect the appeal.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent judge acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion, in issuing the orders of July 2 and July 15, 1955, and the corresponding writ of execution, for the enforcement of the final Workmen’s Compensation Commission award.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition. The respondent judge did not act without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion.
1. On the lack of notice prior to the hearing on the motion for execution: The Court held that Section 51 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act only requires that the parties be notified of the judgment or decree rendered by the court upon the filing of a certified copy of the Commission’s award. It does not require prior notification or hearing before the court renders such judgment. The petitioner’s counsel was duly notified of the orders after they were issued, which complied with the law.
2. On the executability of the award due to partial payment: The Court held that the question of deduction for any partial payment from the award is to be determined by the Court of First Instance at the hearing of the motion for execution, not by the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner. In this case, the lower court properly heard the matter on July 15, 1955, and amended its order to reflect the admitted partial payment.
3. On the allegation that the July 15 order modified the Commission’s decision: The Court held that the order did not change the nature of the award; it merely reduced the executable amount based on the partial payment, which was a proper and just action. The amended order became final as the petitioner did not perfect an appeal from it.