G.R. No. L-27692, May 30, 1969
National Development Company, petitioner, vs. Workmen’s Compensation Commission and Rosario Martin Vda. de Mallari, respondents.

FACTS

Milagros Mallari was employed as an apprentice and later a spare weaver by the National Development Company (NDC) starting in 1947. During her employment, she contracted minimal pulmonary tuberculosis. On December 21, 1951, she spat blood while operating a machine, was advised to rest, taken to the company dispensary, and never returned to work. It is alleged she was separated from service on that date and given a gratuity. Her illness worsened, and she died on July 12, 1953, nearly two years after leaving NDC. Her mother, respondent Rosario Martin Vda. de Mallari, first filed a claim for death compensation benefits in the Court of First Instance of Manila on August 29, 1960, which was dismissed, a dismissal sustained by the Supreme Court. She filed another claim with the Department of Labor’s Regional Office on January 25, 1963. NDC defended that the claim was time-barred under Section 24 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act ( Act No. 3428 ), requiring claims to be made within three months after death. The Workmen’s Compensation Commission awarded benefits, ruling that NDC’s failure to controvert the claim forfeited its defenses, including prescription, because NDC allegedly had knowledge of the death. The Commission based this on the claimant’s testimony that she verbally demanded burial aid and benefits from a company assistant manager, Francisco Lopez, during her daughter’s wake, which was denied. NDC disputed this, stating Lopez was unavailable and no company record of such demand existed.

ISSUE

Whether the claim for death compensation was filed within the prescribed period under Section 24 of Act No. 3428 , and whether NDC’s failure to controvert constituted a waiver of the defense of prescription.

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission. The claim was not filed within the mandatory three-month period after death, as it was filed over seven years later in court and over nine years later with the proper office. While failure to controvert generally waives defenses, including prescription, such waiver presupposes the employer had knowledge of the death. Here, Milagros Mallari died almost two years after leaving NDC’s service, so knowledge could not be presumed from an employer-employee relationship. The only evidence of NDC’s knowledge was the claimant’s unsupported, self-serving testimony of a verbal demand made years earlier. Given the circumstances—the long delay in filing, the lack of any record of the demand, and the urgency of the claimant’s need at the time of death which was not followed up—the Court found this evidence insufficient to prove NDC had timely knowledge. The peremptory filing periods are designed to prevent stale claims and allow employers a reasonable opportunity to investigate while facts are fresh. Therefore, the claim was time-barred, and NDC did not waive the defense of prescription. The award was set aside.