Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=22600:g-r-no-l-43309-may-31,-1977-atanacia-m-caling-v-workmen-rsquo-s-compensation-commission,-et-al&amp;catid=1094&amp;Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 02:04:53+00:00

Document:
ATANACIA M. CALING, Petitioner, v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION and REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES (Provincial Auditor’s Office, Province of Nueva Ecija), Respondents.
Zerrudo & Caling Law Office for Petitioner.
Acting Solicitor General Hugo E. Gutierrez, Jr., Assistant Solicitor General Nathaniel P. de Pano, Jr. and Solicitor Patricio M. Patajo for Respondents.
Petition for review of the decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission affirming the dismissal letter of the Chief, Workmen’s Compensation Commission Unit, Regional Office No. III, Department of Labor, of the claim for death benefits filed by the petitioner in RO3-WCC Case No. 10532.
Jose Caling, the deceased husband of the petitioner, during his lifetime was employed as Section Chief in the Provincial Auditor’s Office, Province of Nueva Ecija, with an average weekly salary of P110.00. During the time of his employment, he contracted an illness which was diagnosed by his attending physician as myocardial infraction for which he was treated at the Nueva Ecija General Hospital. However, he succumbed to said illness on December 23, 1971.
On June 17, 1974, the respondent Republic of the Philippines (Provincial Auditor’s Office, Province of Nueva Ecija) thru the office of the Solicitor General, was required by the Regional Office of the Department of Labor to accomplish and submit within ten (10) days the Employer’s Report of Accident or Sickness. However, this requirement was not complied with. In the meantime, no schedule of hearing was set for the case.
On November 11, 1975, the Chief, Workmen’s Compensation Unit, RO3, issued a letter stating that the claim of petitioner is being dropped from the calendar of activities of said office. On December 1, 1975, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the letter of dismissal. Because of said motion, the entire record of the case was elevated to the Workmen’s Compensation Commission for review.
1.	The Chief, Workmen’s Compensation Unit, Regional Office No. III, in his letter dismissal dated November 11, 1975 and the Workmen’s Compensation Commission in its decision dated January 14, 1976, which affirmed the letter dismissal, seriously erred and committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction when they decided the case without hearing and notice, hence, depriving herein petitioner her constitutional right to due process of law.
2.	The Chief, Workmen’s Compensation Unit, Regional Office No. III and, the Commission seriously erred and committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in dismissing petitioner’s claim being contrary to law and evidence on record.
The ruling in the case of Pioneer Ceramics v. Samia, 3 likewise, bears the same effect. Since there is nothing in the record to show the contrary, We see no possible prejudice that could have been suffered by the respondent Republic due to the late filing of petitioner’s claim. The circumstances do not warrant its dismissal.
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered reversing that of the respondent Workmen’s Compensation Commission and awarding to the petitioner the sum of P6,000.00, as death compensation benefits, P200.00 as burial expenses; to her lawyer P600.00 as attorney’s fees and P61.00 as administrative fee.
1.	Central Azucarera Don Pedro v. WCC, L-24987, July 31, 1968; NDC v. WCC, L-14936, April 20, 1964; Century Ins. Co. v. Fuentes, L-16039, Aug. 31, 1961.
3.	L-28719, June 23, 1970.
4.	Ang Tibay v. CIR, 40 O.G. 7th. Supp. 29.
6.	Pros v. WCC, L-43348, Sept. 29, 1976, citing Magalona v. WCC, 21 SCRA 1199, citing Itemcop v. Florzo, L-21969, Aug. 31, 1966; Vda. de Acosta v. WCC, L-19772, Oct. 31, 1964; Maria Cristina Fertilizer Co. v. WCC, 60 SCRA 228; Talip v. WCC, L-42575, May 31, 1976; Mercado v. WCC, L-42451, July 30, 1976; Reynaldo v. Republic, L-43108, June 30, 1976; Simon v. Republic, L-42510, June 30, 1976; Abana v. Quisumbing, L-21849, March 27, 1968; Justiniano v. WCC, L-22774, Nov. 21, 1966, citing Agustin v. WCC, L-19957, Sept. 29, 1964; Cabinta v. WCC, L-42639, July 30, 1976; Galang v. WCC, L-41893, Aug. 27, 1976; Camarillo v. WCC, L-42831, Oct. 21, 1976.
7.	Francisco v. Consing, 63 Phil. 354; Vergara v. Pampanga Bus Co., 34 O.G. 635; Caro v. Rolloraza and WCC, L-1969, Sept. 30, 1957; Bautista v. Murillo, L-13374, January 31, 1962; Madrigal Shipping Co. v. Melad, L-17362, L-17367-69, February 13, 1963.

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