G.R. No. L-26875 July 31, 1970
GUARDIAN SECURITY AND INVESTIGATION AGENCY, petitioner, vs. THE WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, and MERLA G. APRUEBO, for herself and in behalf of her minor children ROBERTO AND ROGELIO both surnamed APRUEBO, respondents.

FACTS

On August 28, 1965, respondent Merla Apruebo, for herself and on behalf of her two minor children, filed a claim for compensation arising from the death of her husband, Rodolfo Apruebo, who was an employee of petitioner Guardian Security and Investigation Agency until his death on July 8, 1965. The notice of claim was directed to Boie Incorporated and a certain Capt. Pedro Martinez. After hearings, the hearing officer awarded death benefits to the claimants. Petitioner filed a petition for review with the Workmen’s Compensation Commission, arguing the award was null and void because the claim was not directed against it, so it did not become a party to the proceeding. The Commission affirmed the award, finding that petitioner had voluntarily submitted to jurisdiction by filing the Employer’s Report of Accident, which identified it as the employer. Petitioner moved for reconsideration, praying for reinstatement of its right to controvert the claim, but this was denied. Petitioner then filed the instant petition for review.

ISSUE

Whether the Workmen’s Compensation Commission erred in affirming the award and denying the reinstatement of petitioner’s right to controvert the claim, despite the claim notice being directed to other entities.

RULING

The petition is without merit. The Workmen’s Compensation Commission did not err. Petitioner filed the Employer’s Report of Accident on September 8, 1965, admitting Rodolfo Apruebo was its security guard who met a fatal accident on July 8, 1965, and that it had knowledge of the accident on that date. Under Section 45 of Act 3428 (the Workmen’s Compensation Act), an employer must file a notice to controvert the claim on or before the 14th day of disability or within 10 days after knowledge of the accident, giving specific details. Failure to comply constitutes a waiver of the right to controvert. Petitioner’s filing of the report on September 8, 1965 was long after the expiration of the prescribed period, thus amounting to a waiver. Furthermore, by filing the Employer’s Report, petitioner voluntarily submitted to the jurisdiction of the Regional Office and cannot deny being a party to the case. On the denial of reinstatement of the right to controvert, the Commission, in its discretion under the law, refused reinstatement, and the record does not show any grave abuse of discretion in this refusal. The petition for review is dismissed.