G.R. No. L-11219; May 7, 1958
PACITA SALABARIA VDA. DE SUATARON, in her own behalf and as natural guardian of her minor children, EVA and ROMEO, JR., both surnamed SUATARON, petitioner-appellee, vs. HAWAIIAN-PHILIPPINE COMPANY, respondent-appellant.

FACTS

Petitioner Pacita Salabaria Vda. de Suataron, for herself and as guardian of her minor children, filed a petition in the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental for a writ of execution to enforce a final and executory award from the Workmen’s Compensation Commission, affirmed by the Supreme Court on May 25, 1955. The total award was P2,171.52 plus P100.00 burial expense. Respondent Hawaiian-Philippine Company had paid P765.19, leaving an alleged balance of P1,506.33 plus interest. Respondent, in its amended answer, claimed that during the pendency of the proceedings before the Commission and the Supreme Court, petitioner had drawn various amounts totaling P1,519.45 as payments on account of the compensation. After the award became final, respondent remitted a check for the balance of P792.19 to the Commission. The parties submitted a stipulation of facts, agreeing that petitioner had received a total of P1,750.00 from respondent under vouchers bearing notations stating the amounts were “voluntary donation[s] to the family of the deceased policeman, Romeo Suataron; not as admission of legal liability on the part of the company.” The issue submitted was whether these amounts should be considered payments in settlement of the compensation liability. The lower court denied respondent’s motion to dismiss and ordered the issuance of the writ of execution to enforce the full award, holding its function under Section 51 of Act No. 3428 , as amended, was merely ministerial. Respondent’s motion for reconsideration was denied, and its appeal was initially disapproved as the decree was unappealable, but the court later allowed the appeal on the specific question of law.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of First Instance, in a proceeding under Section 51 of Act No. 3428 , as amended by Republic Act No. 772 , to enforce a final award of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission, has the authority to adjudicate a claim for deduction from the award based on alleged advance payments made during the pendency of the proceedings, or whether its function is merely ministerial to render judgment in accordance with the final award.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that the function of the Court of First Instance under Section 51 of Act No. 3428 , as amended, is merely ministerial to render a decree or judgment in accordance with the final award of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission and to enforce it. The law provides that such a decree “shall have the same effect, and all proceedings in relation thereto shall thereafter be the same as though the decree or judgment had been rendered in a suit duly heard and tried by the Court, except that there shall be no appeal therefrom.” This indicates the court cannot modify or alter the award. The proper time for respondent to raise the question of whether the amounts given were advance payments or voluntary donations was when the award was affirmed by the Supreme Court and the case was returned to the Workmen’s Compensation Commission for enforcement, or before the petition for execution was filed in court. Since the award had become final and executory, the court’s only duty was to enforce it. The appeal was dismissed and the order of the trial court was affirmed.