G.R. No. L-7364 July 31, 1954
MARCELA DIONISIO, petitioner, vs. ROSARIO JIMENEZ, ERNESTO P. HERNANDO, COMMISSIONER CESARIO DE LEON, THE HONORABLE JUDGE BIENVENIDO A. TAN, and SEVERO ABELLERA, respondents.

FACTS

Rosario Jimenez filed a claim for compensation before the Workmen’s Compensation Commission (Case No. 480) against Esperanza Lime Factory for the death of her husband, a laborer. The claim was served on the factory’s manager, Esperanza Antonio de Carranglan. In the Employer’s Report of Accident (the answer), the manager stated that the owner and licensee of the factory was Marcela Dionisio. After a hearing where both parties presented evidence, the referee rendered a judgment ordering the respondent (the factory) to pay compensation. This judgment became final. Jimenez then filed a petition in the Court of First Instance of Rizal (Civil Case No. 2354) to enforce the judgment. The court reaffirmed the Commission’s decision, and a writ of execution was issued, leading to the levy of a parcel of land belonging to Marcela Dionisio. Dionisio filed this certiorari petition, seeking annulment of all proceedings in both the Commission and the trial court, alleging she was never personally served with summons, notified, or given an opportunity to be heard, and that enforcement would deprive her of property without due process.

ISSUE

Whether the proceedings before the Workmen’s Compensation Commission and the Court of First Instance are null and void for lack of due process due to the alleged failure to personally serve summons or notice on the petitioner, Marcela Dionisio.

RULING

The petition is denied. The proceedings are valid. Service of the claim upon the manager, Esperanza Antonio de Carranglan, constituted valid service upon the owner, Marcela Dionisio. Under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, the “employer” includes the owner or manager of the business. The manager’s report identified Dionisio as the owner, and the manager (who is also Dionisio’s daughter) actively defended the case. Furthermore, under the Rules of Court, when persons transact business under a common name, service may be made upon the person in charge of the place of business, and a suit may be brought against the associates under that common name. Dionisio, having operated under the business name “Esperanza Lime Factory,” cannot avoid liability by claiming lack of personal service. Service upon the manager was service upon her in contemplation of law, and she was represented and defended in the proceedings, thus receiving due process.