G.R. No. L-47178 May 16, 1980
ESTRELLA B. ONDOY, petitioner, vs. VIRGILIO IGNACIO, Proprietor M/B LADY ESTRELLITA and/or IMPERIAL FISHING ENTERPRISES and/or THE SECRETARY OF LABOR and/or THE COMPENSATION APPEALS AND REVIEW STAFF, Department of Labor, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Estrella B. Ondoy filed a claim for compensation as the mother of Jose Ondoy, who drowned while employed as a fisherman by private respondent Virgilio Ignacio. It was undisputed that the employer failed to controvert the claim within the statutory period, an omission generally fatal to any defense. The employer later filed a motion to dismiss, alleging an absence of an employment relationship. During the hearing, the employer submitted affidavits from the vessel’s chief engineer and oiler, stating the deceased left the ship for a drinking spree and was later found dead. However, the referee summarily ignored a counter-affidavit from the employer’s chief-mate, which explicitly stated Jose Ondoy “died in line of Duty” while in the actual performance of his work in October 1968.
The hearing officer dismissed the claim for lack of merit. The petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was subsequently denied by the Secretary of Labor. This prompted the petitioner to elevate the case to the Supreme Court via a petition for review, arguing that the dismissal was erroneous given the lack of controversion and the presence of evidence supporting compensability.

ISSUE

Whether the claim for compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act should be granted despite the referee’s dismissal, considering the employer’s failure to controvert and the evidence presented.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition and reversed the dismissal. The legal logic is anchored on several established principles under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. First, the employer’s failure to timely controvert the claim is fatal to any defense, as consistently held in a long line of decisions. This omission alone warranted the granting of the award. Second, the death due to drowning is presumed compensable once it is shown to have arisen in the course of employment. The burden to rebut this presumption lies with the employer. The counter-affidavits submitted, suggesting the deceased left for a drinking spree, were deemed insufficient to overcome this statutory presumption, especially when weighed against the chief-mate’s affidavit affirming the death occurred “in line of Duty.”
Third, the Court clarified that the doctrine of according weight to administrative findings of fact does not apply when such conclusions are not supported by substantial evidence, as in this case where a crucial affidavit was ignored. Finally, the decision aligns with the constitutional and statutory policy of social justice and protection to labor, mandating a liberal interpretation of the Act in favor of the claimant, particularly an unlettered laborer or their dependent. All doubts must be resolved in favor of compensability. Therefore, the failure to grant the award found no justification in law.