G.R. No. L-8316; April 15, 1955
LUZON STEVEDORING CO., INC., petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE CESAREO DE LEON, Commissioner of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission, ATANACIO A. MARDO, Referee, Workmen’s Compensation Commission, and TERESA JAVIER VDA. DE GONZALES, ETC., respondents.

FACTS

Teresa Javier Vda. de Gonzales, et al., filed a claim for compensation with the Workmen’s Compensation Commission on April 22, 1952, due to the death of Maximino Gonzales, an employee of Luzon Stevedoring Co., Inc. The company moved to dismiss the claim on the ground of prescription, but the motion was denied. After a hearing, Referee Atanacio A. Mardo rendered a decision on February 23, 1954, ordering the company to pay compensation benefits and burial expenses to the minor children of the deceased, while dismissing the claims of the widow and adult children. On March 9, 1954, the company filed a motion for reconsideration, reiterating its prescription argument. The referee denied the motion on April 1, 1954, without amending or modifying the original decision. The company then filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court, which was dismissed because the appeal should have been taken from the decision of the Commissioner, not the referee. Following the Supreme Court’s suggestion, the company filed a motion with the Workmen’s Compensation Commission on May 19, 1954, praying that the referee be ordered to refer the case to the Commission for review, as the referee had not amended or modified his decision. The Commission denied this motion on September 11, 1954, and a subsequent motion for reconsideration, on the ground that the referee’s decision had become final. The company then filed the present petition for certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the decision of the referee dated February 23, 1954, had already become final when the petitioner filed its motion praying that the case be referred to the Workmen’s Compensation Commission for review under Section 49 of Act No. 3428 , as amended by Republic Act No. 772 .

RULING

No. The Supreme Court granted the petition. The Court held that under Section 49 of Act No. 3428 , as amended, when a party dissatisfied with a referee’s order files a petition for review, the referee may reopen the case or amend or modify the order. If the referee does not amend or modify the order, he must refer the entire case to the Commissioner for review. In this case, the petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration (which the Court treated as a petition for review in substance) within the 15-day period after the referee’s order. Since the referee denied the motion without amending or modifying his original decision, his duty was to refer the case to the Commissioner. The referee’s failure to do so, and the Commission’s denial of the petitioner’s motion on the mistaken belief that the decision had become final, constituted an abuse of discretion. The Court ruled that the petitioner’s filing of a motion for reconsideration instead of a petition for review was a mere technical error that did not affect the substantive purpose of seeking review. Therefore, the referee’s decision had not become final, and the Commission was directed to have the entire record referred to it for review.