G.R. No. L-22663 July 31, 1968
HOC HUAT TRADING, represented by LEE LOH, Owner and Proprietor, petitioner, vs. HON. GUILLERMO S. SANTOS, Judge, Court of First Instance, Manila, THE CITY SHERIFF, MANILA, THE DISBURSING OFFICER, Dept. of Justice and LORETO GREMIO, respondents.

FACTS

Loreto Gremio, claiming to be a laborer of Hoc Huat Trading (petitioner), filed a workmen’s compensation claim with Regional Office No. 4 of the Department of Labor for injuries suffered on May 10, 1962. On October 7, 1963, Hearing Officer Rodolfo M. Santos rendered a decision awarding Gremio P765.35. Petitioner’s counsel received notice of this award on October 14, 1963. No appeal was taken within the 15-day statutory period. On December 12, 1963, Gremio filed a case in the Court of First Instance of Manila (Branch XI, Judge Guillermo Santos) for execution of the award, attaching a certification that it had become final. On December 13, 1963, petitioner filed an opposition in the CFI, alleging its counsel’s failure to inform it of the award due to “oversight” and claiming a substantial defense, and prayed to set aside the award under Rule 38 of the Rules of Court. On the same date, petitioner also filed an “urgent motion for reconsideration” with the Regional Office. On December 21, 1963, Judge Santos rendered a “judgment/decree” ordering petitioner to pay Gremio the award amount plus attorney’s fees and costs. A writ of execution was issued on January 2, 1964. On January 23, 1964, petitioner filed a motion to recall the writ and deposited P765.35 with the court cashier to prevent a sheriff’s sale. On January 24, 1964, Gremio moved to withdraw the deposit and collect an additional sum, which Judge Santos granted. On February 11, 1964, the hearing officer authorized petitioner to file a petition for review, which was filed on March 2, 1964, and forwarded to the Workmen’s Compensation Commission on March 12, 1964. Petitioner then filed the present certiorari action, arguing that Judge Santos committed grave abuse of discretion in authorizing the withdrawal of the deposit because the award was not final due to the petition for review.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent Judge committed a grave abuse of discretion, amounting to lack of jurisdiction, in issuing the order authorizing the execution and withdrawal of the cash deposit for the enforcement of the workmen’s compensation award.

RULING

No. The petition is dismissed and the preliminary injunction is dissolved. The award became final and executory after the 15-day period from notice (which expired on October 29, 1963) lapsed without an appeal or petition for review. Petitioner’s failure to appeal was due to its counsel’s “oversight,” which constitutes neglect that is not “excusable” under Rule 38. The application of Rule 38 to workmen’s compensation cases is debatable as it could modify the express statutory finality provision of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, which aims for expeditious disposal. The law (Section 51 of Act No. 3428 ) commands a court to render judgment in accordance with a final compensation award upon presentation of a certified copy. Judge Santos did not commit grave abuse of discretion in ordering execution. Furthermore, the Workmen’s Compensation Commission later affirmed the award in a decision that also became final, and petitioner’s counsel subsequently consented to the Commission disposing of the deposited sum, rendering the issue moot.