G.R. No. L-22199; January 31, 1966
MALABON RESTAURANT, ET AL., petitioners, vs. THE HEARING OFFICER, REGIONAL OFFICE No. 4, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, MANILA, ET AL., respondents.

FACTS

On August 28, 1962, Antonio Datubio filed a claim for compensation with Regional Office No. 4 of the Department of Labor against his employers, the owners of Malabon Restaurant, alleging that an illness he contracted as their cook was aggravated by the nature of his employment. The employers were served with the claim on September 11, 1962. Their counsel requested and was granted an extension to file an answer but failed to do so. Consequently, on December 27, 1962, the hearing officer declared the employers in default. After the claimant presented evidence, the hearing officer rendered a decision on February 7, 1963, granting compensation. Copy of the decision was sent by registered mail to the employers’ counsel but was returned unclaimed.
On March 27, 1963, the hearing officer certified that the decision had become final and executory due to the employers’ failure to appeal. The claimant then filed a petition with the Court of First Instance of Manila to have the decision rendered a valid judgment, which was granted on April 19, 1963. When the claimant moved for execution on June 8, 1963, the employers filed a petition for relief with the Workmen’s Compensation Commission on June 14, 1963, which was denied by Commissioner Nieves Baens del Rosario and affirmed by the Commission en banc. The employers filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court, which was dismissed for lack of merit.
On December 7, 1963, the claimant reiterated his motion for execution. Before the motion could be heard, the employers filed the present petition for certiorari, alleging that the hearing officer and the respondent court lacked jurisdiction because their business capital was less than P10,000 and the employment was not hazardous or deleterious.

ISSUE

Whether the petition for certiorari is barred by res judicata due to the prior dismissal of a petition for review raising identical grounds, and whether the hearing officer and the Workmen’s Compensation Commission lacked jurisdiction over the claim.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition.
First, the petition is barred by res judicata. The grounds alleged in the present petition for certiorari are a reiteration of those in the previously dismissed petition for review. A party cannot escape the effects of res judicata by merely varying the form of action or adopting a different method of presenting the case. The policy of the law is to prevent piecemeal litigation and put an end to disputes.
Second, the claim of lack of jurisdiction is untenable. The only jurisdictional foundation required for a claim under the Workmen’s Compensation Act is the existence of an employer-employee relationship. The fact that the employers’ capital is less than P10,000 or that the employment is not hazardous or deleterious constitutes an affirmative defense that must be invoked timely; otherwise, it is deemed waived.
Finally, even if the case were considered on its merits, the employers’ failure to appear before the hearing officer despite notice, and the hearing officer’s rejection of their excuses, are matters addressed to the sound discretion of the lower court, which the Supreme Court will not disturb.
Costs were awarded against the petitioners.