G.R. No. L-9521; November 28, 1959
LUZON STEVEDORING COMPANY, petitioner, vs. HON. CESAREO DE LEON, Commissioner of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission, and TERESA JAVIER VDA. DE GUZMAN, ET AL., respondents.

FACTS

Maximo Gonzales, a pre-war checker for Luzon Stevedoring Company, died on October 14, 1941, from an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. He was hit by a falling box while checking cargo on board a ship, causing him to fall into the hold and die before reaching the hospital. His dependents were his widow, Teresa Javier Vda. de Gonzales, and their children: Jovita, Antonio, Purificacion, Leonardo, and Natividad. The company had knowledge of the accident and death, as its representative informed the widow. The widow received P200.00 as voluntary aid from the company in 1949. The formal “Notice of Injury and Sickness and Claim for Compensation” was filed only on April 22, 1952. The petitioner company objected to the claim on the ground of prescription. The Workmen’s Compensation Commission, through a referee, sustained the objection as to the widow and the eldest child, Jovita, but awarded compensation to the other children (Antonio, Purificacion, Leonardo, and Natividad). The Commissioner confirmed this award.

ISSUE

Whether the claim for compensation by the minor children (Antonio, Purificacion, Leonardo, and Natividad) is barred by prescription for failure to file within the three-month period required under Section 24 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act.

RULING

No, the claim is not barred with respect to the minor children. The Supreme Court affirmed the award of death benefits to claimants Antonio, Purificacion, Leonardo, and Natividad Gonzales.
The Court held that while Section 24 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act requires a claim to be filed within three months after death, Section 28 provides that “None of the time limits provided for in this Act shall apply to a person mentally incapacitated or to a dependent minor so long as he has no guardian or next friend.” Interpreting the phrase “guardian or next friend” in line with American workmen’s compensation laws from which the Philippine Act is patterned, it refers to “one authorized to maintain an action for and in the name of another who is non sui juris.” Under the law then in force (prior to the New Civil Code), the mother, as a natural guardian, was not the legal representative of her minor children and had no authority to maintain an action in court on their behalf, particularly concerning property rights. Therefore, she could not be considered the “guardian or next friend” of the minors under the Act. Consequently, the prescriptive period did not run against the dependent minors who had no legal guardian.
Regarding claimant Antonio, who had reached majority by the time the claim was filed, prescription did not run against him during his minority as he had no legal guardian. He had two years after reaching majority to bring his action under the statute of limitations. The claim, filed when he was just over 18, was filed well within the applicable prescriptive periods (6 years under the Code of Civil Procedure or 10 under the New Civil Code), especially considering the operation of the Debt Moratorium Law. Thus, his claim was also not prescribed.