G.R. No. L-27588; April 28, 1969
LUZON STEVEDORING CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION and ROSARIO VDA. DE ROSANO, respondents.

FACTS

On November 30, 1964, stevedore Pastor Rosano went to Pier 9, Manila, to await a barge of petitioner Luzon Stevedoring Corporation. While waiting, he had a heated argument with fellow stevedore Benjamin Valdez over possession of a work platform. Rosano secured the platform. After lunch, upon returning and finding Valdez with the platform again, another argument ensued where Valdez uttered threats against Rosano’s life. Later, learning the barge was not arriving, Rosano boarded a jeep home. Upon alighting near his house, he was met and stabbed by Valdez, dying that afternoon. On March 1, 1965, Rosano’s widow and minor children filed a claim for death compensation benefits. The petitioner corporation denied the claim, asserting no employer-employee relationship existed at the time of death and that the claim was filed beyond the three-month prescriptive period. The Acting Referee awarded compensation, which the Workmen’s Compensation Commission affirmed. The corporation’s motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting this petition for review.

ISSUE

1. Whether an employer-employee relationship existed between petitioner Luzon Stevedoring Corporation and the deceased Pastor Rosano at the time of his death.
2. Whether Rosano’s death arose out of and in the course of his employment, making it compensable.
3. Whether the claim for compensation had prescribed.

RULING

1. Yes, an employer-employee relationship existed. The petitioner’s claim that Rosano was a “gang boss” working on an “on and off” basis and that the union furnished laborers did not negate the relationship. Unrebutted testimony showed Rosano had done stevedoring work for the petitioner for 15 years. The union was merely an agent of the company, and such indirect employment does not relieve the employer of liability under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, especially where no contractor’s bond was required from the union.
2. Yes, the death is compensable. The fatal stabbing was directly traceable to a work-related quarrel over a platform to be used in their employment. The assault, though occurring outside company premises and after work hours, was a continuation of the employment incident. Jurisprudence holds that an injury from an assault is compensable if a rational mind can trace it to a cause set in motion by the nature of the employment. The rule applied in Field vs. Charmette Knitted Fabric Co., where a quarrel outside the workplace was deemed a continuation of one begun inside, is controlling here. The quarrel from origin to ending was one, arising from a work dispute.
3. No, the claim has not prescribed. While the formal claim was filed beyond the three-month period, the petitioner failed to controvert the claim within the period prescribed by Section 45 of Act No. 3428 (the Workmen’s Compensation Act). The law requires only “knowledge of the accident,” not formal notice. The stabbing incident, given its circumstances, would have been a matter of common knowledge in the petitioner’s office. The employer’s failure to timely controvert constitutes a waiver of non-jurisdictional defenses, including prescription. The right to compensation is thus not barred.
The petition for review was dismissed, affirming the Commission’s award of death compensation benefits, burial expenses, and attorney’s fees.