G.R. No. L-21385-86; August 22, 1969
Crispiniano Blanco, petitioner, vs. Workmen’s Compensation Commission, Tomas Dragon and Erlinda Domulot, respondents.

FACTS

On June 18, 1956, a six-by-six truck owned by petitioner Crispiniano Blanco, who was engaged in the logging business, turned turtle in Masinloc, Zambales. The truck was loaded with logs and carried six men. Four individuals—Tomas Dragon, Diomedes Basa, Antonio Panis, and Wilfredo de la Cruz—died. The deceased Basa, de la Cruz, and another survivor, Dominador Domulot, were employed by Blanco as wood cutters and were on the truck upon his orders to assist in delivering the logs. Panis acted as foreman. Dragon and Basa earned an average weekly wage of P50.00 plus food and cigarettes. Dragon was survived by his parents, Sebastian Dragon and Bonifacia Dumlao, who were totally dependent on him. Basa was survived by his wife, Erlinda Domulot, and daughter Remedios, who were wholly dependent on him.
After the deaths, petitioner paid P500.00 each to Erlinda Domulot (Basa’s widow), Sebastian Dragon (Tomas’s father), and Rosario Dragon (de la Cruz’s widow). These payments were allegedly consideration for dismissing criminal charges against the truck driver, Amador Macaspac, who also agreed to pay the same amounts.
Despite these payments, Sebastian Dragon and Erlinda Domulot filed separate claims for death compensation. Petitioner denied liability, arguing no employer-employee relationship existed between him and the deceased Dragon and Basa, and that he was unaware they were on the truck. The Hearing Officers denied both claims, finding insufficient proof of an employer-employee relationship. The claimants appealed to the Workmen’s Compensation Commission, which set aside the denials and awarded death benefits, burial expenses, and attorney’s fees. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied.
Petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari, raising issues including: the Commission’s jurisdiction after alleged withdrawal of the petitions for review; prescription of the claims; admission of hearsay evidence; error in considering an amicable settlement as proof of employer-employee relationship; lack of evidence for such relationship; and error in awarding burial expenses and attorney’s fees without demand or proof.

ISSUE

1. Whether the Workmen’s Compensation Commission lost jurisdiction due to an alleged withdrawal of the petitions for review.
2. Whether the claims had prescribed under Section 24 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act.
3. Whether the Commission committed grave abuse of discretion in admitting and considering hearsay evidence.
4. Whether the Commission erred in considering an amicable settlement in a criminal case as proof of employer-employee relationship.
5. Whether the Commission erred in finding an employer-employee relationship despite alleged lack of evidence.
6. Whether the Commission erred in awarding burial expenses and attorney’s fees without demand or proof.

RULING

1. On Jurisdiction After Alleged Withdrawal: The Commission did not lose jurisdiction. The alleged withdrawal was not sufficiently established, as the claimant denied signing it or claimed his signature was obtained through fraud and misrepresentation. The Commission had jurisdiction to determine the validity of the withdrawal and correctly proceeded with the petitions for review.
2. On Prescription of Claims: The defense of prescription is untenable. Petitioner raised this defense only on appeal, not during trial. It is well-settled that such a defense cannot be raised for the first time on appeal and is deemed waived if not pleaded earlier. Moreover, petitioner failed to controvert the claims within the statutory period under Section 45 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, which entitles claimants to compensation as a matter of law. Petitioner’s choice to rely solely on the defense of no employer-employee relationship, without alternatively pleading prescription, constituted a waiver of the latter defense.
3. On Admission of Hearsay Evidence: The Commission did not commit grave abuse of discretion. While it considered an affidavit from driver Amador Macaspac, this was not the sole evidence. The affidavit merely corroborated other competent evidence, including: ownership of the truck by petitioner; his logging business since 1948; the P500.00 payments to claimants for dismissing the criminal case; and testimonies from family members and ex-wood cutters of petitioner, all pointing to him as the employer of the deceased from 1948 to 1956.
4. On Amicable Settlement as Proof: The Commission’s consideration of the amicable settlement (P500.00 payments) was not erroneous. Even disregarding these payments, substantial evidence in the record supported the finding of an employer-employee relationship.
5. On Existence of Employer-Employee Relationship: The Commission did not err. Sufficient evidence, as detailed above, established the relationship. Petitioner’s denial of knowledge that the deceased were on the truck was not legally sufficient to overcome the evidence.
6. On Award of Burial Expenses and Attorney’s Fees: The Commission’s award was proper. Burial expenses are mandated by Section 8 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act. Attorney’s fees are awardable under Section 6, Rule 26 of the Rules of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission and Article 2208(8) of the Civil Code, as the claimants were compelled to litigate due to petitioner’s unwarranted denial of their claims.
The appealed joint decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission was affirmed.