G.R. No. L-19881; January 31, 1964
Alfredo Cerbo, petitioner, vs. Hon. Gregorio D. Montejo, as Judge of the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga del Sur, and Watts Selective Philippine Timber Co., Inc., respondents.

FACTS

The Workmen’s Compensation Commission rendered a final and executory decision ordering respondent Watts Selective Philippine Timber Co., Inc. to pay petitioner Alfredo Cerbo compensation for the death of his son, a former employee. To execute this award, petitioner filed a petition in the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga City under Section 51 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, seeking the court’s rendition of a judgment conformable to the Commission’s decision. The respondent judge, however, issued an order holding the petition in abeyance and requiring the filing of a formal complaint, later denying reconsideration and directing petitioner to file a separate action to acquire jurisdiction for execution.
Respondents opposed, contending the Zamboanga City court lacked jurisdiction because the fatal accident occurred in Basilan City, and that proper summons and a trial were necessary. Petitioner thus filed this mandamus petition to compel the judge to render judgment based on the Commission’s award and issue execution.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent judge acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in refusing to render judgment based on the final Workmen’s Compensation Commission award and in requiring the filing of a formal complaint.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the writ of mandamus. The proceeding under Section 51 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act is summary and special. Its sole purpose is to elevate a final administrative award into a judicial judgment for execution. The law explicitly requires only the filing of a certified copy of the final decision or approved agreement in the proper court of record. Upon such filing, the court must render a decree or judgment in accordance therewith and notify the parties. No formal complaint, summons, or new trial on the merits is necessary. The court’s role is ministerial; it does not re-litigate the case.
Regarding venue, the Court clarified that the statutory phrase “in the jurisdiction of which the accident occurred” pertains to venue, not jurisdiction over the subject matter. Since the question of improper venue was not raised in the lower court, it could not be raised for the first time on appeal. The respondent judge therefore erred in requiring a separate action and a complaint. He is ordered to take cognizance of the petition and proceed in accordance with Section 51.