GR 42255; (January, 1977) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-42255 January 31, 1977
WILFREDO D. BAEL, for and in behalf of the minors: AGNES, BALTAZAR, and CYNTHIA, all surnamed BAEL, petitioners, vs. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES (Bureau of Public Schools), respondents.
FACTS
Lourdes Vda. de Bael, an elementary school teacher employed by the Bureau of Public Schools, died in a vehicular accident on July 26, 1975, while on her way home from work. Her heirs, petitioners herein, filed a Notice of Death and Claim for Compensation. The respondent Bureau, through the Solicitor General, moved to dismiss the claim, arguing it was not furnished a copy of the notice. The Hearing Officer denied the motion, ruling that the Bureau failed to controvert the claim within the reglementary period, thereby waiving its defenses, and awarded death benefits to the petitioners.
The Workmen’s Compensation Commission, upon review, set aside the Hearing Officer’s award and denied the claim. The Commission’s decision prompted this petition for review. The petitioners argue that the employer’s failure to controvert the claim renders it liable and that the death, occurring while commuting home, is compensable under the “going to and coming from” rule.
ISSUE
The primary issues are: (1) whether the employer’s failure to report the accident and controvert the claim within the statutory period results in automatic liability, and (2) whether an employee’s death while commuting home from work is compensable.
RULING
The Supreme Court reversed the Commission’s decision and reinstated the award. On the first issue, the Court held that the failure to controvert within the prescribed period constitutes a waiver of all non-jurisdictional defenses, including the defense of non-compensability. This legal effect does not violate due process. The duty to transmit the claim to the Solicitor General, as per administrative circulars, rests on the Workmen’s Compensation Unit head, not the claimant. The petitioners’ filing with the proper unit was substantial compliance; any lapse in transmission is not attributable to them and should not prejudice their claim.
On the merits, the Court applied the “going to and coming from” rule, finding the death compensable. The deceased teacher, after her official hours, was commuting home to continue work-related tasks such as preparing lesson plans and correcting papers. Her commute was a necessary incident of her employment. The Court analogized the case to prior rulings where injuries sustained during necessary travel to or from work were deemed incurred in line of duty. Thus, the accident arose out of and in the course of her employment, entitling her heirs to death benefits under the Workmen’s Compensation Act.