G.R. No. L-17939; May 30, 1962
RICARDO CARLOS, petitioner, vs. MARIA DE LA ROSA, ET AL., respondents.

FACTS

On June 1, 1959, laborer Celso Aroyo died from a fall while working on a church construction project in Manila, where his employer was Ricardo Carlos. Aroyo’s widow subsequently filed a claim for compensation with the regional labor office. On June 24, 1959, and again on July 17, 1959, the office sent letters to Carlos, requesting him to submit the Employer’s Report as mandated by Section 37 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act. Carlos received these notices but failed to comply.
Due to this non-compliance and based on available evidence like the police report, the Regional Administrator issued a compensation award in favor of the widow on October 7, 1959. Carlos received a copy of this award on January 11, 1960. He then filed a petition for reconsideration, arguing he was denied due process as he was never formally summoned or notified of any hearing, thus preventing him from presenting his defense. This petition was denied, as were his subsequent appeals to the Workmen’s Compensation Commission and the commission en banc.

ISSUE

Whether the Regional Administrator and the Workmen’s Compensation Commission acted without jurisdiction and denied the employer due process by deciding the claim without formal summons and despite the employer’s lack of participation.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the award, ruling there was no denial of due process and the commission acted within its jurisdiction. The legal logic centers on the statutory waiver provision under Section 45 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act. This section requires an employer who wishes to contest a claim to file a notice of controversion within a specified period—either before the fourteenth day of disability or within ten days after gaining knowledge of the accident.
By failing to submit the required Employer’s Report after two explicit written requests from the regional office, Carlos legally renounced his right to controvert the claim. This statutory waiver operates as a forfeiture of the right to challenge the claim on non-jurisdictional grounds. The Court cited the precedent in Victorias Milling Co., Inc. v. Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner, which held that such a failure constitutes a waiver by operation of law and does not violate due process requirements.
The employer’s proper remedy after such a waiver is not to challenge the lack of formal summons but to seek reinstatement of his right to controvert by submitting reasonable grounds for his initial failure to the Commissioner. Since Carlos provided no plausible excuse for his non-compliance other than the absence of formal summons—a reason deemed insufficient against the backdrop of his statutory waiver—he was not entitled to relief. Consequently, the award became final and executory, and its enforcement was valid.