Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=22603:g-r-no-l-44653-may-31,-1977-catalina-v-vda-de-labuca-v-workmen-rsquo-s-compensation-commission,-et-al&amp;catid=1094&amp;Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 14:15:09+00:00

Document:
CATALINA V. VDA. DE LABUCA, Petitioner, v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION and REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES (Bureau of Public Schools), Respondents.
Mercedes M. Respicio, Citizens Legal Assistance Office for Petitioner.
Acting Solicitor General Hugo E. Gutierrez, Jr., Assistant Solicitor General Santiago M. Kapunan and Solicitor Celso S. Ylagan for Respondents.
Petition for review 1 of the decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission which denied the grant of death compensation benefits to petitioner under the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act.
Respondent Bureau of Public Schools appealed the award of the Acting Referee to the respondent Workmen’s Compensation Commission.
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the decision of the respondent Commission is hereby reversed and set aside and that of the Acting Referee modified, requiring respondent Republic of the Philippines (Bureau of Public Schools), to pay petitioner in lump sum the total amount of P6,000.00 as death compensation benefits; the amount of P914.76 as reimbursement for medical and hospital expenses and the amount of P200.00 for burial expenses; to Atty. Urial Leopando the amount of P600.00 as attorney’s fees and to the proper office, the amount of P61.00 as administrative fee. Without pronouncement as to costs.
1.	Treated as a special civil action by resolution of this Court on November 22, 1976.
3.	Pugeda v. Trias, G.R. No. 16925, March 21, 1962.
5.	Section 1 (Rule 10).	The hearing, investigation, and determination of any question or controversy in workmen’s compensation cases shall be without regard to technicalities, legal forms and technical roles on evidence. Substantial evidence, whenever necessary, shall be sufficient to support a decision, order or award. Rules of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission).
6.	Bautista v. Murillo, G.R. No. 13374, January 21, 1962; Vicente v. WCC, G.R. No. 18241, December 27, 1963, Abana v. Quisumbing, G.R. No. 23498, March 27, 1968.
7.	Madrigal Shipping Co. v. Melad, G.R. No. 17362 & G.R. No. 17367-69 February 28, 1963.

References: V. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.