ABOITIZ SHIPPING CORPORATION v.

VIVENCIA ANDO PEPITO

December 17, 1966 | Sanchez, J. | review by certiorari | The Law-Fact Distinction
SUMMARY: Demetrio Pepito, a crew member of M/V Aboitiz went missing while
the vessel was on voyage. His wife filed a notice and claim for compensation, which
the Regional Administrator awarded without hearing. During the proceedings,
petitioner controverted the claim. SC held that the controversion was made out of
time, but the non-controversion cannot be deemed as an admission of the fact of
death, but merely of the fact of Pepitos disappearance. Therefore, the award of
benefits was improper since there was no proper inquiry into the fact and
circumstances of death. However, the Court remanded the case for hearing and
proper judgment to the Commission, since more than 8 years have lapsed since the
event took place, and as such, Pepito can now be presumed dead.
DOCTRINE: Non-controversion in compensation cases simply means admission of
facts, not conclusions of law.
FACTS:
1. Demetrio Pepito, a crew member of M/V P. Aboitiz, disappeared while the
vessel was on voyage. His disappearance was recorded in the Deck Log Book
of said vessel. Petitioner received a letter from Pepitos wife (respondent)
notifying the former of the fact that Pepito was reported missing on Dec. 1,
1961 as per record, and that she believed that Pepito is already dead.
2. Respondent filed with Regional Office No. 8, Department of Labor, Cebu City,
a notice and claim for compensation, asking for death benefits. Petitioner
controverted the claim, alleging that Pepito disappeared while off duty, and that
they did not know if he purposely jumped and swam ashore.
3. The Regional Administrator issued an award for death benefits without hearing,
on the ground that the right to compensation of the claimant has not been
controverted by respondent within the period provided by law. Petitioner filed
an MR but to no avail, prompting it to seek review from the Workers
Compensation Commission, which affirmed the ruling.
4. Important Dates: Dec. 1, 1961: Pepito disappeared; Dec. 26, 1961: Petitioner
received respondents letter; Jan. 12, 1962: Respondent filed the claim; Feb. 16,
1962: Petitioner controverted the claim.

1.

ISSUE/S: WoN the non-controversion of the fact of the decedents disappearance

operates as an admission of the actual fact of death NO.

6.

HELD/RULING: Decision and Resolution SET ASIDE. Case REMANDED to

Workmens Compensation Commission for hearing.

7.

RATIO:

2.

3.

4.

5.

Controversion was made beyond the period set forth in the law and the rules
and regulations of the Workmens Compensation Commission, namely, 14 days
from the date of the accident or 10 days from knowledge thereof.
However, the notice and claim, which was filed barely 42 days after the event
took place, merely stated that the deceased was reported lost or missing. At
that time, no presumption existed that Pepito was dead. The boat was not lost.
This opens up a number of possibilities. Because nothing is certain. Nobody
knows what has happened to him. He could have transferred to another vessel
or watercraft. He could even have swum to safety. Or he could have died. Or
worse, he could have taken his own life. Legal implications such as right to
compensation, succession, the legal status of the wife are so important that
courts should not so easily be carried to the conclusion that the man is dead.
The result is that death cannot be taken as a fact.
Non-controversion in compensation cases simply means admission of facts, not
conclusions of law. The mere failure to controvert the statement that Pepito is
believed to be dead because he was reported missing does not import an
admission that the man is actually dead, but that he was just lost or missing.
Therefore, petitioners non-controversion admits but the fact that Pepito was
missing, but certainly not the actual fact of death.
Petitioner was directed to pay compensation without inquiry into the fact and
circumstances of death. This trenches upon petitioners right to due process, the
award having been made before petitioner was given an opportunity to be heard
on the debatable fact and circumstances of death, thus null and void.
The Commission wants to downgrade petitioners cry of denial of due process
by making a reference to a certain investigation report made barely 42 days
after the incident, by a constabulary sergeant. However, the report does not
prove death. At best, it confirms the known fact of disappearance, with the
circumstance that no one knew what happened to Pepito. Besides, said report
was not brought up at any hearing. Sec. 6 of the Workmens Compensation Law
states that: All ex parte evidence received by the Commissioner shall be
reduced in writing and any party in interest shall have the opportunity to
examine and rebut the same. Petitioner was not afforded an opportunity to as
much as examine or contradict the report; thus, it has no value as evidence.
EER is conceded. The event arose out of and took place in the course of
employment. It matters not that the disappearance occurred while Pepito was
off-duty, for the incident happened while the vessel was on a sea voyage.
More than 8 years have lapsed since the incident took place. By this time, it
cannot be denied that Pepitos disappearance could come within the coverage of
Art. 391, CC. Still, evidence must be taken that his existence has not been
known for 4 years or thereafter.