G.R. No. L-15658; August 21, 1961
CALTEX (PHILIPPINES), INC., petitioner, vs. CRISTETA VILLANUEVA, for herself and in behalf of her minor child, and the WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, respondents.

FACTS

Dominador Maramot, employed as a messboy by Caltex (Philippines), Inc., was on board the vessel MV Caltex Mindanao when it sailed from Batangas on October 9, 1956. On the evening of October 10, while the vessel was in the open sea near Ticao Pass, Maramot was discovered missing. A diligent search was conducted, but neither he nor his body was found. The captain filed a marine protest. On October 24, 1956, Cristeta Villanueva, Maramot’s widow, filed a notice and claim for death compensation with the Workmen’s Compensation Commission.
Caltex received notice from the hearing officer on October 29, 1956, and on November 6, 1956, it submitted the required WCC Form No. 3, wherein it stated the employee was “lost at sea and presumed dead” and indicated it was controverting the claim. The Regional Administrator, on May 6, 1958, awarded compensation to Villanueva, ruling the claim was uncontroverted due to Caltex’s failure to file a timely notice of controversion. Caltex sought reconsideration, arguing the claim was indeed controverted and that, under the Civil Code, a person missing at sea could not be presumed dead until after four years.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether Caltex is liable for death compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act despite its arguments regarding untimely controversion and the legal presumption of death.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission, holding Caltex liable for death compensation. The legal logic proceeds on two key points. First, on procedural grounds, the Workmen’s Compensation Act required the employer to file a notice of controversion within ten days after knowledge of the injury or death, or else be deemed to have renounced the right to contest the claim. Caltex acquired knowledge of the incident on October 10, 1956, when Maramot was found missing, but only submitted its controversion on November 6, 1956, beyond the statutory period. Its failure to file a sworn petition explaining this delay, as required by the rules, resulted in a waiver of its right to controvert. Consequently, the claim was properly treated as uncontroverted, empowering the Regional Administrator to adjudicate it summarily.
Second, on substantive grounds, the Court rejected Caltex’s reliance on Article 391 of the Civil Code, which establishes a four-year presumption of death for persons on board a lost vessel. The Court clarified that this presumption applies specifically for the purpose of settling the estate of a missing person and does not govern claims under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, where no estate settlement is involved. Moreover, the factual premise differed: the MV Caltex Mindanao was not lost; only the employee was missing. Given the circumstances—Maramot’s disappearance in the open sea during his employment, the diligent but fruitless search, and the absence of evidence he was alive—the reasonable inference, as found by the Commission, was that he accidentally fell overboard and drowned in the course of his employment. This established a compensable death under the Act. Therefore, the award of death benefits to the dependent widow and minor child was upheld.