GR 32109; (October, 1971) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-32109. October 29, 1971. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. BARTOLOME LIM and WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, respondents.
FACTS
The Republic, through the Solicitor General, did not controvert the compensation claim of its employee, Bartolome Lim. Consequently, a referee of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission issued a final and executory letter-award in Lim’s favor on December 2, 1969. The Solicitor General failed to appeal within the granted period, which expired on January 3, 1970. On January 30, 1970, the Solicitor General filed a petition for relief from judgment with the Commission under Rule 38 of the Rules of Court, attributing the failure to appeal to excusable negligence. He argued that the assigned solicitor, who went on vacation leave, was overwhelmed by a backlog of cases upon return, causing him to overlook the deadline.
The Commission dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction. It reasoned that under the current legal framework, where the Commission performs only appellate functions and regional offices have original jurisdiction, it could not entertain an original petition for relief. The Commission analogized that, unlike a Court of First Instance which can try a case de novo after granting relief from an inferior court’s judgment, the Commission lacks original jurisdiction to hear the claim anew. The Solicitor General’s motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting this petition for review.
ISSUE
Whether the Workmen’s Compensation Commission has jurisdiction to entertain a petition for relief from a final and executory award rendered by a regional referee.
RULING
Yes, the Workmen’s Compensation Commission possesses jurisdiction to entertain such a petition for relief. The Supreme Court clarified that the Commission, in reviewing decisions of its referees, performs a function analogous to that of a Court of First Instance reviewing decisions of inferior courts. Since the Rules of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission provide that the Rules of Court apply in a suppletory character, Rule 38 on petitions for relief is applicable. This authority was recognized in prior jurisprudence and was not abrogated by the amendments introduced by Republic Act No. 4119 . The Commission’s distinction based on its current appellate role was erroneous; its power to review inherently includes the ancillary authority to grant relief from judgments of its subordinate offices to prevent irreparable injustice.
However, the Court denied the petition on substantive grounds. The alleged negligence of the solicitor was not excusable. He received the award on December 4, 1969, and was granted an extension until January 3, 1970, to appeal. His decision to go on leave from December 22, 1969, to January 5, 1970, without taking necessary precautions to ensure the appeal was filed, constituted mere carelessness. Furthermore, by expressly not controverting the claim initially, the Republic was deemed to have waived its right to challenge the award’s reasonableness. Thus, while the Commission had jurisdiction to hear the petition, the grounds asserted therein were meritless.