G.R. No. L-21467 August 30, 1967
RIO Y COMPANIA, petitioner, vs. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, VIVENCIO SOLIS and REMEDIOS M. SOLIS, respondents.

FACTS

On August 20, 1959, the M/V Pilar II, owned and operated by Rio y Compania, sank during a typhoon, resulting in numerous deaths, including that of Virgilio Solis, whose body was never recovered. On November 18, 1960, Vivencio Solis, the father, filed a claim for death compensation. The company contested the claim, alleging no employer-employee relationship and that Virgilio was not on board. The Hearing Officer dismissed the claim due to lack of employer-employee relationship. The Workmen’s Compensation Commission reversed this decision on January 29, 1963, finding Virgilio was an apprentice-mate at the time of his death and awarding compensation. The company filed a motion for review, raising for the first time the defense of prescription, arguing the claim was filed beyond the three-month period. The Commission en banc denied the motion on May 22, 1963. Rio y Compania appealed by certiorari.

ISSUE

1. Whether the Commission erred in finding an employer-employee relationship between Rio y Compania and Virgilio Solis.
2. Whether the Commission erred in ruling that the defense of prescription was not well-taken.

RULING

1. No, the Commission did not err in finding an employer-employee relationship. The Supreme Court affirmed the Commission’s finding, based on substantial evidence, that Virgilio Solis was an apprentice-mate on the M/V Pilar II. The key evidence was the “Coasting Manifest” or Crew List dated August 12, 1959, signed under oath by the ship’s captain, which listed Virgilio Solis as an apprentice-mate. The Court found this document more credible than the Shipping Articles, which did not include his name, noting the captain had the authority to appoint crew members and his oath in the manifest was compelling. The Court upheld the Commission’s factual findings as final and conclusive, absent grave abuse of discretion.
2. No, the Commission correctly rejected the defense of prescription. The defense was raised only in the motion for review before the Commission, not during the initial proceedings. More importantly, the company failed to comply with its statutory obligations: (a) it did not file a notice of controversion of the claim within ten days after having knowledge of the accident, resulting in a statutory renunciation of its right to contest the claim’s compensability; and (b) it failed to file a report of the injury as required by law. These failures constituted a waiver of the defense based on the late filing of the claim. The Court also noted the company had knowledge of the accident and was not prejudiced by the delay.