G.R. No. L-42020 March 31, 1978
Superior Concrete Products, Inc., petitioner, vs. Workmen’s Compensation Commission and Carmelito Benoza, respondents.

FACTS

The petitioner, Superior Concrete Products, Inc., seeks to annul an award by the Workmen’s Compensation Commission granting Carmelito Benoza compensation benefits for tuberculosis. The claimant, a laborer, alleged he contracted the illness in February 1963 and stopped working in March 1967. He filed his initial claim in April 1971, docketed as Case No. 122718. An award was issued but later vacated, and the claim was re-docketed as Case No. 14617. This case was dismissed without prejudice for the claimant’s non-appearance but was later revived. Subsequently, Benoza filed a new claim in September 1973, docketed as Case No. 144437.
The employer received notice of this new claim on September 3, 1973, but failed to file a report controverting it within the statutory period. Consequently, the Acting Chief Referee issued an award in favor of Benoza on October 26, 1973. The employer’s motion for reconsideration, arguing a denial of due process because an earlier case for the same claim was allegedly still pending, was denied. The Commission en banc affirmed the award, prompting this petition.

ISSUE

The issues are: (1) whether the employer was denied due process in the proceedings for Case No. 144437, and (2) whether the claim is barred by prescription.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled there was no denial of due process. Due process is not violated where a party is given an opportunity to be heard but fails to avail itself of that opportunity. The records confirmed the employer received the notice for the new claim (Case No. 144437) on September 3, 1973. Despite this, it did not file any controversion or opposition until the award was rendered on October 26, 1973. Its inaction justified the issuance of an outright award based on the claimant’s evidence. The employer was not deprived of a hearing; it simply neglected to act. The pendency of a prior, administratively separate case did not preclude the adjudication of the newly filed claim, especially since the employer was duly notified of the new proceeding.
On prescription, the Court held the claim was not barred. Under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, the prescriptive period is ten years from the date of disability. Benoza’s cause of action accrued when he stopped working due to his illness in March 1967. He filed his initial claim in April 1971, well within the ten-year period. Any delay was attributable to his being an unschooled laborer unaware of his legal rights. Moreover, the employer’s failure to timely controvert the claim within fourteen days after disability or ten days after knowledge thereof resulted in a waiver of non-jurisdictional defenses, including prescription, and constituted an admission of the claim’s compensability. The petition was denied, and the award was affirmed with modifications for attorney’s fees and administrative costs.