G.R. No. L-14903; August 29, 1960
KOPPEL (PHILIPPINES) INC., petitioner, vs. DANILO DARLUCIO, ET AL., respondents.

FACTS

The respondents are the widow and minor children of Jaime Darlucio, Sr., who was employed as a security guard/watchman. On February 26, 1957, while performing his duties at the establishment of petitioner Koppel (Philippines) Inc. in Manila, Darlucio was feloniously shot and killed by Jose Rites y Rico, a former employee of the petitioner. The killing occurred when Darlucio blocked Rites’s entry into the establishment, acting in obedience to an order from the petitioner’s personnel manager. Rites was subsequently convicted of homicide in a final and executory decision. The widow and children filed a claim for compensation with the Workmen’s Compensation Commission. A hearing officer of Regional Office No. III rendered a decision ordering the petitioner to pay compensation, burial expenses, and fees. The petitioner filed a one-paragraph petition for review with the Commission, alleging the decision was “contrary to both law and the evidence” but without specifying any particular errors. The Commission, citing Section 49 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act and its own Rule 23, Section 2, held the petition insufficient as it did not detail specific errors, rendering the hearing officer’s decision final and executory. The Commission en banc denied the petitioner’s motion for reconsideration. The petitioner now seeks review by certiorari, arguing that the Commission erred in passing upon the sufficiency of the appeal after its allowance by the regional office and in finding that Darlucio was its employee, citing a partial stipulation that he was employed by the Enriquez Detective and Protective Agency, Inc., an independent contractor.

ISSUE

1. Whether the Workmen’s Compensation Commission erred in dismissing the petitioner’s appeal for failure to specify particular errors as required by law and its rules.
2. Whether the Workmen’s Compensation Commission erred in finding that the deceased Jaime Darlucio, Sr., was an employee of the petitioner, Koppel (Philippines) Inc., for purposes of compensation liability, notwithstanding the existence of a contract with a detective agency.

RULING

1. No, the Commission did not err in dismissing the appeal. The petition for review filed by the petitioner failed to comply with the mandatory requirement of Section 49 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act and Section 2, Rule 23 of the Commission’s Rules, which require that such a petition “shall specify in detail the particular errors and objections.” The petitioner’s one-paragraph, generalized allegation was insufficient. This failure caused the hearing officer’s decision to become final and executory. The Commission had the authority to consider this jurisdictional defect motu proprio, regardless of any prior action by the regional office.
2. No, the Commission did not err in finding an employer-employee relationship. The partial stipulation that Darlucio was employed by the Enriquez Detective and Protective Agency, Inc., was not conclusive. Testimonial evidence established that the petitioner exercised significant control over Darlucio’s work: it required him to submit daily time records to its officer, Mr. Martin; provided clocks and specified timing stations; gave direct instructions on whom to admit; required direct reports of incidents; and investigated guards. Furthermore, Darlucio’s name was included in a list of employees the petitioner submitted to the Commission. The Court agreed with the Commission’s finding that the agency was not a true “independent contractor” as defined by law and jurisprudence, which requires one who exercises independent employment according to his own methods without control except as to the result. Citing precedents (Compañia Maritima vs. Cabagnot; Associated Watchmen and Security Union vs. United States Lines), the Court held that where a worker’s services are ultimately engaged for the benefit and under the control of a principal, that principal is the “statutory employer” liable for compensation under the Act. Therefore, Koppel (Philippines) Inc. was liable as the employer of Jaime Darlucio, Sr.
The decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission was affirmed.