GR 40739; (January 1976) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-40739. January 30, 1976.
SECURITY SERVICES UNLIMITED, INC., petitioner, vs. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION and AIDA B. VDA. DE UMPAD, et al., respondents.
FACTS
Rogelio Umpad, a security guard employed by Security Services Unlimited, Inc., died on December 24, 1972, from a gunshot wound to the head sustained in an assault. The employer, through its representative Col. Serafin M. Gonzales, acquired knowledge of the death on December 25, 1972. The employer filed an Employer’s Report of Accident on October 26, 1973, and a formal notice of controversion on November 2, 1973. The Workmen’s Compensation Section of Regional Office No. 4 issued an award in favor of Umpad’s heirs on January 7, 1974, granting death benefits. The Workmen’s Compensation Commission affirmed this award, citing the employer’s failure to timely controvert the claim.
ISSUE
Whether the employer’s failure to timely controvert the claim for compensation operates as a waiver of its non-jurisdictional defenses, thereby rendering the death compensable as a matter of law.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the Commission’s decision. The legal logic centers on the mandatory and jurisdictional nature of the controversion requirement under Section 45 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act ( Act No. 3428 , as amended). The law requires an employer who decides to controvert a claim to file a notice with the Commission within ten days from knowledge of the accident or fourteen days from disability, stating the reasons for refusal. The employer here knew of the death on December 25, 1972, but filed its controversion only on November 2, 1973, which was grossly beyond the statutory period.
This failure constituted a renunciation of the right to controvert the claim. Consequently, the employer is deemed to have waived all non-jurisdictional defenses, including its arguments that there was no employer-employee relationship at the time of death or that the death did not arise from or in the course of employment. The Act, being social legislation, is liberally construed in favor of labor. The Court reiterated settled jurisprudence that failure to controvert on time entitles the claimant to compensation as a matter of law and implies an admission of the material facts alleged. The employer’s proper recourse was to seek reinstatement of its right to controvert under Section 45, which it did not do. Thus, the award was legally warranted.