GR L 15394; (April, 1961) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-15394. April 29, 1961
CESARIO DE LEON, as Workmen Compensation Commissioner, PABLO SARAGINA, and FILOMENA TAMBIS, petitioners, vs. THE HON. JUDGE MACAPANTON ABBAS of the Court of First Instance of Davao and AGUSTIN PAHAMOTANG, respondents.
FACTS
The case originated from a workmen’s compensation claim. Jacinto Saragina, driver of a truck owned by respondent Agustin Pahamotang, died in a work-related accident on March 6, 1954. The Workmen’s Compensation Commission awarded death benefits to his parents, petitioners Pablo Saragina and Filomena Tambis. After Pahamotang’s petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court against this award was dismissed, he filed a civil action in the Court of First Instance of Davao to annul the award, impleading the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner and the deceased’s parents as defendants.
The defendants were declared in default for failure to answer. Their motion to lift the default was denied, and a decision was rendered annulling the award. The defendants then filed a notice of appeal. Pablo Saragina and Filomena Tambis, admitted to be poor, petitioned to appeal as paupers. The Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner also sought to perfect his appeal without filing an appeal bond.
ISSUE
Did the respondent judge commit grave abuse of discretion in: (1) denying the petition of Saragina and Tambis to appeal as paupers; and (2) requiring the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner to file an appeal bond?
RULING
Yes, on both counts. The Supreme Court granted the petition for certiorari and mandamus.
Regarding the first issue, the lower court denied the pauper’s appeal on the erroneous ground that Saragina and Tambis were merely “nominal defendants,” with the Commissioner being the principal party. The Court held this was a grave abuse of discretion. Saragina and Tambis, as the beneficiaries of the compensation award, were the real parties-in-interest. The action sought to nullify an award made in their favor; thus, they were the principal, not nominal, parties. Their admitted indigency was a compelling reason to grant a pauper’s appeal, not to deny it.
Regarding the second issue, the Court ruled that the respondent judge also gravely abused his discretion in requiring an appeal bond from the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner. The Commissioner was sued in his official capacity, making the action effectively one against the Government. Under established doctrine, the Government is not required to post an appeal bond when appealing in such capacity. The Commissioner, being a nominal party in this context, should not be burdened with this requirement.
Consequently, the Supreme Court directed the respondent judge to allow the appeal of Saragina and Tambis as paupers and to certify the record on appeal without requiring an appeal bond from the Commissioner.