G.R. No. L-14298; April 29, 1960
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. BRICCIO INCIONG and WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, respondents.

FACTS

Briccio Inciong was employed as a latheman in the Bureau of Public Works from January 2, 1948, to June 7, 1949. On August 20, 1948, while riveting galvanized iron sheets in Manila, a nail he was hammering jumped and hit his right eye. His foreman and a co-worker took him to the Philippine General Hospital, where he was treated and released the same day. He reported for work the next day. The foreman reported the accident to his superior at the Bureau of Public Works at Fort Santiago, but no further action was taken, and Inciong continued his employment. In May 1954, a medical officer of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission examined Inciong and found he was suffering from traumatic cataract in his right eye, causing total blindness, which occurred immediately after the accident. The Philippine General Hospital records only confirmed the injury date. Inciong did not file any claim until October 7, 1957, when he filed a complaint against the Republic of the Philippines, seeking compensation, P200 for medical expenses, and P100 for attorney’s fees. The Republic, in its answer, denied the allegations and raised affirmative defenses: the injury was not reported to the Bureau, no claim was filed until over nine years after the injury, causing the action to prescribe, and the Republic had not consented to the prosecution of the complaint. The hearing commissioner recommended payment of compensation, which was confirmed by an Associate Commissioner of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission on August 24, 1958. The Republic filed this petition for certiorari to review that decision.

ISSUE

Whether the petition for certiorari filed by the Republic of the Philippines to review the decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission is premature.

RULING

Yes, the petition is premature and must be dismissed. The Court held that the petition sought to review a decision of only one Commissioner, not the Workmen’s Compensation Commission en banc, in violation of Rules 24 and 25 of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission, which were effective on April 30, 1957. Citing the precedent in Madrigal Shipping Co., Inc. vs. Nivese Baens del Rosario, et al., G.R. No. L-13130 (October 31, 1959), the Court ruled that since the petitioner filed the petition for review on November 16, 1957, after the effectivity of the Rules, without first seeking a remedy from the Commission en banc, the action was premature. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition without passing upon the issues of prescription and other defenses raised by the petitioner. No costs were awarded.