G.R. No. L-43795 April 5, 1985
JOSE NEGRE, petitioner, vs. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION and MAXIMA VDA. DE SOLIVIO, for herself and in behalf of her minor children, namely, VIVIAN, MIGUEL, JR., and LEONARDO, all surnamed SOLIVIO, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Jose Negre owned the fishing boat “Sonny.” Miguel Solivio and his son Manuel were crew members. Typhoon “Klaring” wrecked the boat off Masbate, drowning all crew, including Miguel and Manuel. Their bodies were never recovered. Respondent Maxima Vda. de Solivio, widow of Miguel and mother of Manuel, filed death compensation claims against Negre with the Workmen’s Compensation Unit in Bacolod City. She alleged both were Negre’s employees, with Miguel as master fisherman (“maestro”) earning at least P650 monthly and Manuel as a crew member earning at least P350 monthly. She received P700 from Negre but sought full compensation.
Negre controverted, denying an employer-employee relationship. He claimed Miguel was a business partner where Negre provided capital (boat and expenses) and Miguel contributed labor, with profits shared: half to Negre and half divided among the crew based on their jobs. He also denied employing minor Manuel, attributing his presence to his father. The Workmen’s Compensation Unit ruled for Solivio, finding an employer-employee relationship and ordering Negre to pay compensation. The Workmen’s Compensation Commission (WCC) affirmed but increased attorney’s fees.

ISSUE

1. Did the WCC commit grave abuse of discretion by declaring its decision final and executory without resolving Negre’s motion for reconsideration?
2. Was there an employer-employee relationship between Negre and the deceased?
3. Was the claim filed beyond the prescriptive period?

RULING

The Supreme Court found no grave abuse of discretion by the WCC. The Commission was undergoing abolition per Letter of Instruction No. 190, and Department Order No. 3, Series of 1974, mandated that decisions by the Commission en banc become final and executory if no appeal is taken to the Supreme Court within ten days from notice. The decision bore the concurrence of the chairman and an associate commissioner, complying with the order. Negre’s motion for reconsideration did not toll the period for finality under these specific transitional rules aimed at expediting case liquidation.
On the substantive issue, the Court affirmed the existence of an employer-employee relationship. The four-fold test—selection and engagement of employees, payment of wages, power of dismissal, and power of control—was satisfied. Negre engaged Miguel as maestro to recruit licensed fishermen, furnished the boat and all operational expenses, and the crew contributed only labor. The profit-sharing scheme did not negate the relationship; it was a method of wage payment. The arrangement was a typical subterfuge to evade liability under labor laws. The reality of the work arrangement, not technical legal rules, governs. The claim was filed within the ten-year prescriptive period under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. However, the Court modified the monetary awards, setting death benefits at the maximum P6,000 per decedent (P12,000 total), minus the P700 paid, plus P1,200 attorney’s fees and P122 administrative fees.