GR L 26077; (May, 1968) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-26077 May 27, 1968
SURIGAO CONSOLIDATED MINING COMPANY, INC., petitioner, vs. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION and CLETO TUIBUEN, respondents.
FACTS
Respondent Cleto Tuibuen worked for petitioner Surigao Consolidated Mining Company, Inc. starting April 7, 1952. On March 6, 1954, while working inside a tunnel, a blast went off above his head, and he was hit by a wooden splinter at his right clavicle. The accident was known to petitioner’s safety engineer. Respondent was treated at the Grace Christian Clinic and was found to be suffering from impaired hearing as a result of the accident. Despite his condition, petitioner allowed him to continue working until May 18, 1954, when he was laid off due to the impaired hearing. Respondent filed a claim for compensation on November 23, 1960, with the Department of Labor. Petitioner answered and controverted the claim on February 3, 1961. The claim was later refiled in Manila on May 13, 1964. Petitioner moved to dismiss the claim, arguing it was filed out of time and had prescribed. The acting referee dismissed the claim, but the Workmen’s Compensation Commission reversed this order and awarded compensation to respondent. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied, leading to this petition for review.
ISSUE
Whether or not respondent’s claim for compensation had been timely filed as provided by law.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission. The Court ruled that the delay in filing the claim was excusable because the employer, having knowledge of the accident since March 6, 1954, failed to file a timely controversion of the employee’s right to compensation as required by Section 45 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act. The failure to comply with the notice and claim requirements under Section 24 of the Act is non-jurisdictional, especially when the employer had knowledge of the injury and did not suffer from the delay. Furthermore, the Court held that an action to enforce the employer’s obligation to pay compensation, being created by law, prescribes in ten years under Article 1144(2) of the Civil Code, making the claim filed within six years not a bar to recovery. The Commission’s factual findings were supported by substantial evidence.