G.R. No. L-28895 September 30, 1970
BIENVENIDO JORDAN (Deceased) substituted by his wife GLORIA R. VDA. DE JORDAN and his parents PORFIRIO JORDAN and BRIGIDA JAMON JORDAN, petitioners, vs. J. DE DIOS ENTERPRISES, INC. and WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, respondents.

FACTS

On February 27, 1964, Bienvenido Jordan filed a workmen’s compensation claim against his employer, J. de Dios Enterprises, Inc., for injuries sustained in a work accident on December 31, 1963. The employer failed to controvert the claim, leading to a Regional Office award on June 3, 1964, granting Jordan P4,000.00 in disability compensation and P7,388.08 for medical expenses. The employer’s subsequent petition to set aside the award was denied. The case was elevated to the Workmen’s Compensation Commission for review. On September 3, 1964, Associate Commissioner Cesareo Perez issued an order remanding the case to the Regional Office to receive evidence on the nature and extent of injuries, wages, and medical expenses, and declared the claim’s compensability undisputed due to the employer’s failure to timely controvert. The employer filed a motion for reconsideration and a petition to reinstate its right to controvert. This resulted in a tie vote within the Commission: Chairman N. Baens del Rosario voted to deny the employer’s petition and affirm the September 3, 1964 order, while Commissioner Perez voted to modify it. A second vote yielded the same tie. Subsequently, Commissioner Perez issued an order dated December 3, 1964, remanding the case for a hearing and decision on the merits without limitation. On July 14, 1966, the Chairman issued an order affirming the September 3, 1964 order and remanding the records for compliance. The Regional Office, through Acting Referee Pedro P. Pelaez, heard the case and rendered a decision on April 4, 1967, awarding compensation. After Jordan’s death, he was substituted by his heirs. The employer moved for reconsideration, arguing the decision contravened the December 3, 1964 order. The case was elevated again. On July 10, 1967, Chairman Baens del Rosario rendered a decision declaring Referee Pelaez’s decision void for lack of authority but awarded compensation and expenses. The employer moved for reconsideration. After the Chairman’s retirement and the appointment of new commissioners, the Commission en banc, on February 29, 1968, set aside the Chairman’s July 10, 1967 decision and ordered the case remanded for a full hearing on the merits pursuant to the December 3, 1964 order. One commissioner dissented. The heirs of Jordan appealed to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

The primary issues were: (1) whether the controlling order is that of September 3, 1964, or that of December 3, 1964; (2) whether Chairman Baens del Rosario’s decision of July 10, 1967 was rendered in accordance with law; and (3) whether the Commission en banc’s resolution of February 29, 1968, remanding the case, should be affirmed or set aside.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that the order of September 3, 1964, is controlling. The Court held that the September 3, 1964 order, issued by Associate Commissioner Perez as a reviewing commissioner, was appealed to the Commission en banc via the employer’s motion for reconsideration. Pursuant to Section 4, Rule 17 of the Commission’s Rules, a tie vote (with the Chairman affirming and Commissioner Perez modifying his own order) that persisted after a second voting resulted in the affirmation of the original appealed order. The subsequent order of July 14, 1966, which declared the September 3, 1964 order affirmed, was not appealed and was complied with. Therefore, the December 3, 1964 order was of no legal effect. The Court further held that Chairman Baens del Rosario’s decision of July 10, 1967, whether viewed as a valid decision on appeal from the referee’s decision or as a correct setting aside of a decision rendered beyond the referee’s limited authority, was in accordance with law and the evidence. Consequently, the Supreme Court reversed and set aside the Commission en banc’s resolution of February 29, 1968, and affirmed the decision of Chairman Baens del Rosario dated July 10, 1967. Costs were imposed on the respondents.