G.R. No. L-12034; August 30, 1958
HEIRS OF PATRICIO PABORES, petitioners, vs. THE COMMISSIONER, WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, UNION CONSTRUCTION CO., and LIBERTY OIL FACTORY, respondents.

FACTS

Patricio Pabores was employed as a mason-carpenter helper by Union Construction Co., Inc., from March 12, 1956, to July 23, 1956, with a daily wage of P4.50, during the construction of a building for Liberty Oil Factory in Quezon City. On July 19, 1956, at around 12:10 p.m., while workers were eating lunch, they heard an unusual sound from the direction of an unfinished toilet in the building under construction. They found Pabores unconscious on the ground beside a dug-out airplane shock absorber, with a bleeding thigh. He was taken to North General Hospital, where his wound was sutured and dressed, and he was discharged. On July 22, 1956, he was readmitted due to pain in the injured area and died on July 23, 1956; the certified cause of death was gas gangrene. He was survived by a legitimate daughter (Magdalena, 12 years old) and two allegedly acknowledged natural children (Prima, 1 year and 9 months old, and Jaime, 9 months old). The heirs, through guardians, filed a claim for compensation with the Workmen’s Compensation Commission against Union Construction Co., Inc., and Liberty Oil Factory (W.C. Case No. 44914). After a hearing, the referee, relying on a Quezon City Police Department report that found no eyewitnesses and concluded Pabores must have tampered with the airplane shock absorber—causing the injury when compressed air was released—rendered a decision on December 12, 1956, holding the death did not arise out of employment and was not compensable. The Commissioner affirmed this decision on January 9, 1957. The petitioners sought review, alleging the referee decided before considering their memorandum, which highlighted Pabores’ statement to a physician that he fell from a scaffolding. Respondents countered that the memorandum was filed late. Petitioners received the Commissioner’s decision on February 4, 1957, filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court on February 14, 1957, but filed the notice of appeal with the Commission only on February 19, 1957.

ISSUE

Whether the petitioners’ appeal from the decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission was perfected in accordance with the procedural requirements under Rule 44 of the Rules of Court.

RULING

No. The petition is dismissed due to the petitioners’ failure to perfect their appeal within the reglementary period. Under Rule 44, Section 1 of the Rules of Court, as amended by Commonwealth Act No. 559 , an appeal by certiorari from a decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission must be perfected by filing both a notice of appeal with the Commission and a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court within ten (10) days from notice of the decision. Here, petitioners received the decision on February 4, 1957, and filed the petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court on February 14, 1957 (within the 10-day period). However, they filed the notice of appeal with the Commission only on February 19, 1957, which was 15 days after notice and 5 days beyond the reglementary period. This failure to comply with the procedural requirement is fatal to the appeal, as established in precedent (Martha Lumber Co., Inc. vs. Lagradante et al.). Consequently, the Court did not need to address the substantive issue of whether the Commissioner’s ruling was supported by evidence. The petition is dismissed without costs.