G.R. No. L-19019. April 29, 1963.
MALAN BROTHERS WATCHMAN AGENCY, petitioner, vs. MAGDALENO CONANAN and THE WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, respondents.

FACTS

Respondent Magdaleno Conanan, a security guard employed by petitioner Malan Brothers Watchman Agency, sustained injuries to his left leg on November 6, 1959, when his service pistol accidentally discharged while he was on duty. On January 6, 1960, he filed a claim for compensation under Act No. 3428, as amended. The claim and requisite forms were sent to the petitioner, with receipt acknowledged by its manager on April 4, 1960. However, the petitioner failed to submit the accomplished forms or otherwise controvert the claim in a timely manner.
It was only on October 3, 1960, approximately six months after acknowledgment, that petitioner submitted the forms, admitting it had paid Conanan P350 as “voluntary help” but effectively controverting the claim. Due to this late filing, the Regional Administrator deemed the claim uncontroverted and, on October 12, 1960, issued an award in favor of Conanan amounting to P3,371.46. Notice of this award was sent by registered mail, but petitioner refused to claim it from the post office despite registry notices.

ISSUE

The principal issue is whether the award had become final and executory, thereby rendering petitioner’s subsequent motion for reconsideration invalid.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the orders of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission, ruling the award was final and executory. The legal logic rests on the mandatory periods prescribed by the Workmen’s Compensation Act. Section 45 of Act No. 3428, as amended, required the employer to controvert the claim within a specific period. Petitioner’s controversion filed on October 3, 1960, was grossly late, having received the claim documents on April 4, 1960. This failure to timely controvert constituted a waiver of all non-jurisdictional defenses, making the claim uncontroverted as a matter of law.
Consequently, under established jurisprudence, the Regional Administrator was authorized to decide the claim based on the evidence submitted without the necessity of a formal hearing. Petitioner’s argument that the award was void for lack of a hearing was therefore without merit. Furthermore, the award became final upon petitioner’s failure to appeal or move for reconsideration within the statutory period. Notice of the award was deemed complete five days after the first registry notice was received on November 11, 1960. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration filed on February 3, 1961, was filed more than sixty days later and was thus correctly dismissed as out of time. The Court found no excusable neglect to justify the late controversion or the belated motion.