Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=22601:g-r-no-l-43325-may-31,-1977-dolores-a-pobre-v-republic-of-the-phil&amp;catid=1094&amp;Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 18:21:21+00:00

Document:
DOLORES A. POBRE, Petitioner, v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES (Bureau of Public Schools), Respondent.
Angel M. Alegre for Petitioner.
Solicitor General Estelito P. Mendoza, Assistant Solicitor General Vicente V. Mendoza and Trial Attorney Lourdes Gana-Barzaga for Respondent.
Petition for review 1 of the decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission denying the claim of petitioner, Dolores A. Pobre, for compensation benefits under the Workmen’s Compensation Act against respondent Republic of the Philippines (Bureau of Public Schools).
3.	To pay this Office, the sum of ELEVEN PESOS (P11.00) as fees pursuant to Section 44 of the Act.
On February 13, 1976, the respondent Commission set aside the decision of the Acting Referee and dismissed the claim of petitioner. In dismissing the claim, the respondent Commission ruled that the decision of the Acting Referee is null and void because he has no more jurisdiction to entertain said claim inasmuch as the claimed disability occurred after January 1, 1975 and that jurisdiction over claims for compensation benefits starting said date is vested either in the Government Service Insurance System or in the Employees Compensation Commission.
In the case before Us, the cause of action of petitioner arose from the moment she contracted her illness in 1968, and continued to run from said date up to March 31, 1975 when she was hospitalized in the Veterans Memorial Hospital. When she filed therefore her present claim for compensation benefits with Regional Office No. 5, within the period allowed by the New Labor Code (P.D. 442), as amended by P.D.’s 570-A, 626 and 643, that is up to March 31, 1975, she was well within the coverage of the transitory provision abovequoted because said provision allowed the filing of claims with the appropriate regional office of the Department of Labor not later than March 31, 1975. True it is, that the Workmen’s Compensation has been abolished by the New Labor Code and in lieu thereof the GSIS and Employees Compensation Commission were vested with the authority to decide the claim of government employees or private employees as the case may be. Although the claim of petitioner was filed with the Regional Office No. 5 instead of the GSIS, it does not follow that the claim cannot be entertained anymore. The filing of the claim with the said office that has no authority to act on it can be treated as having been filed with the appropriate agency as long as it is filed within the period allowed by law.
1.	Treated as Special Civil Action as per resolution of this Court on August 13, 1976.
2.	Magalona v. WCC & Nasso, 21 SCRA 1199; Cabenta, etc. v. WCC, G.R. No. 42639, July 30, 1976.
3.	Abanan v. Quisumbing, 22 SCRA 1279.
4.	Magalona v. WCC, 21 SCRA 1199, citing Justiniano v. WCC, L-22774, November 21, 1966.

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