G.R. No. L-38911 January 28, 1980
ESMERALDO GUZMAN, petitioner, vs. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION and JESUS ROS BAGO, respondents.

FACTS

Jesus Ros Bago, a jeepney driver employed by Esmeraldo Guzman, filed a claim for disability compensation on January 14, 1974, alleging he fell ill with hypertension and congestive heart failure on August 15, 1970. Guzman filed an Employer’s Report on January 25, 1974, controverting the claim. He argued that Bago had abandoned his job in November 1971 and was then working as a taxi driver when he incurred his illness. The Acting Chief Referee of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission rendered an award in favor of Bago, ordering Guzman to pay P6,000.00.
The referee held that Guzman failed to seasonably controvert the claim within the statutory period, resulting in the loss of his non-jurisdictional defenses and a deemed admission of compensability. Guzman filed an urgent motion for reconsideration, which the referee treated as a “useless piece of paper” due to lack of proof of service to the claimant. Instead of appealing to the full Workmen’s Compensation Commission, Guzman filed a notice of appeal directly to the Supreme Court via a petition for certiorari, alleging denial of due process.

ISSUE

Whether the Supreme Court can review, via certiorari, the factual finding that the employer failed to seasonably controvert the compensation claim, and whether the employer was denied due process.

RULING

The petition is dismissed. The Supreme Court affirmed the award. The core issue of whether Guzman seasonably filed his controversion is a question of fact. The record established that the employer’s report was filed only on January 25, 1974, which was years after Guzman gained knowledge of the employee’s illness on August 15, 1970. This factual finding by the referee that Guzman failed to comply with the mandatory 10-day period for controversion under Section 45 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act is conclusive in this certiorari proceeding, which is not a vehicle for re-evaluating factual determinations.
On the legal effect, the failure to seasonably controvert results in a waiver of all non-jurisdictional defenses, including the defense that the illness is not work-connected. Consequently, the disputable presumption under Section 44 of the Act—that the claim is compensable—arose and was not rebutted. The burden to disprove compensability shifted to the employer, who, by his own procedural default, admitted it. The claim for denial of due process lacks merit. The employer was given an opportunity to be heard when he filed his Employer’s Report. His subsequent failure to properly perfect an appeal to the Commission and his procedural misstep in filing directly with the Supreme Court foreclosed further review. The award was thus affirmed.