G.R. No. L-29019. May 18, 1972. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES (Department of Justice), petitioner, vs. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION and CLEOFE R. AZAÑA, in her own behalf and in behalf of her minor children, MANUEL and ROGELIO, both surnamed AZAÑA, respondents.
FACTS
The widow and minor children of the late Municipal Judge Victoriano D. Azaña filed a claim for death compensation benefits, alleging he contracted chronic asthma in the course of his employment and died from it. The Department of Justice received the formal notice of claim on July 20, 1967. The Office of the Solicitor General, on behalf of the Republic, filed its notice to controvert the claim on August 2, 1967. The Workmen’s Compensation Commission ruled this controversion was filed beyond the mandatory 10-day period prescribed by law, resulting in a forfeiture of the employer’s non-jurisdictional defenses. Consequently, the Commission affirmed an award of death and burial benefits to the claimants.
The Republic appealed, arguing the 10-day period should be counted only from the date the Solicitor General’s Office itself received the claim on July 24, 1967, making its August 2 filing timely. It also contested the award’s merits, arguing the death was not work-connected and that the hearing was conducted ex parte without proper notice.
ISSUE
Whether the Republic’s notice of controversion was filed within the reglementary period.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the Commission’s decision, ruling the controversion was fatally late. The 10-day period is counted from the date the employing department or agency—here, the Department of Justice—receives the claim, not from the date its legal arm, the Solicitor General, receives it. The Court rejected the Republic’s technical distinction, noting the Solicitor General’s Office is an integral part of the Department of Justice and both offices were housed in the same building, making internal transmission of the claim a matter of routine efficiency. The 13-day delay from the Department’s receipt was inexcusable.
The Court emphasized the State must set an example in strictly observing its own laws. Previous rulings that service on the Department of Labor did not bind the Solicitor General were distinguished, as the Labor Department and the Solicitor General are independent entities. Here, the employer is the Republic, represented by the Department of Justice, of which the Solicitor General is a component. The forfeiture of defenses due to late controversion, consistently applied to private employers, applies with equal force to the government. The award was thus upheld based on this procedural default, making a determination on the merits of the claim unnecessary.
