G.R. No. L-12324; August 30, 1958
TAN LIM TE, petitioner, vs. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSIONER, SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION, PROVINCIAL SHERIFF OF PAMPANGA, RUFINA REYES DE MENDIOLA, for herself and in behalf of her minor children, FERMIN, RAMON, JUAN, NESTOR, NITA and ROMMIE, all surnamed MENDIOLA, respondents.

FACTS

Juan Mendiola was employed as a truck driver by Francisco Tan Lim Te. On January 28, 1952, while Mendiola was riding atop sacks of palay on a jeep-trailer owned by his employer to prevent them from falling, the vehicle passed over a roadhole, throwing him to the ground. He sustained injuries including dislocation of the patella and fractures of the pubis bones. He received medical treatment and returned to work a month later but reportedly had recurring fever. He died on January 25, 1953, diagnosed with “portal cirrhosis.” The attending physician stated the first stage of cirrhosis might have been present at the time of injury and that weakened resistance might have aggravated the condition, noting Mendiola had been treated for related conditions since 1951. On March 3, 1953, Mendiola’s widow and seven minor children filed a claim for compensation with the Workmen’s Compensation Commission. The employer, Tan Lim Te, was furnished a copy of the claim and required report on September 18, 1953, but only submitted his opposition on February 10, 1954. The Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner awarded compensation to the claimants on September 7, 1955. Tan Lim Te’s motions for reconsideration and new hearing were denied. On March 29, 1957, the Secretary of the Commission issued a writ of execution. Tan Lim Te filed a petition for certiorari to nullify the award and proceedings, challenging the Commission’s jurisdiction and its power to issue the writ.

ISSUE

1. Whether the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner committed grave abuse of discretion in awarding compensation and denying the employer’s motions.
2. Whether the Workmen’s Compensation Commission had the power to issue the writ of execution dated March 29, 1957.

RULING

1. No grave abuse of discretion. The employer failed to file the required Employer’s Report of Accident within the period mandated by Section 44 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act (within 14 days of disability or 10 days after knowledge of the accident). His submission on February 10, 1954, was untimely, as he had knowledge of the accident on January 28, 1952, and was furnished the claim on September 18, 1953. This failure constituted a renunciation of his right to controvert the claim. The Commissioner’s discretion to reinstate this right upon showing reasonable grounds was not gravely abused in denying the employer’s motions, which cited unfamiliarity with the law and alleged late filing of the claim. The award, finding the injury arose out of and in the course of employment, was thus upheld.
2. The writ of execution was issued without authority, but the award remains valid and enforceable. The Commission issued the writ on March 29, 1957, invoking Rule 11 of its Rules promulgated under the Reorganization Plan. However, these Rules became effective only on April 30, 1957. Therefore, at the time of issuance, the governing procedure was under Section 51 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, which required the award to be enforced by filing a certified copy in a court of record. The erroneous writ is void but does not affect the finality of the award. A prevailing party is entitled to a correct writ and shall not be prejudiced by such error. The Supreme Court ordered the Commission to issue a new, proper writ of execution.
The petition for certiorari was dismissed, the preliminary injunction lifted, and costs were imposed on the petitioner.