Vda. De Santiago v.
Reyes and Workmens employment and his heirs are therefore not
Compensation Commission (1960) Labrador, J.
Plaintiff: Trinidad de Los Reyes Vda. de Santiago for
herself and in behalf of her minor children
Respondent: Angela Reyes and Workmens
Compensation Commission
Concept: The Law-Fact Distinction
Brief facts: Victoriano Santiago, a jeepney driver,
was found dead in Tayabas, Quezon which is outside
the route prescribed by the Public Service Commission.
His widow filed a claim for compensation with the
Workmens Compensation Commission which denied
the claim on the ground that Santiago willfully violated
the instructions of his employer and the rules set by
PSC thus his death cannot be considered as one arising
from the course of his employment. The SC reversed
and granted compensation.
Doctrine: Presumptions that an unwitnessed death
arose out of employment are allowed in some
jurisdictions, where the employer provides no contrary
proof, and when last seen deceased was working.
FACTS:
1. Victoriano Santiago was a driver of a jeepney
(autocalesa) operated by Angela Reyes. He was
last seen operation the autocalesa at 9 in the
evening of September 26, 1955.
2. In the morning of September 27, 1955, his dead
body was found in Tayabas, Quezon. He was a
victim of murder by persons who were at large and
whose identities werent known. He must have
been attacked with a blunt instrument as an
examination of his head disclosed that it was
heavily fractured, fragmented into many pieces
which resulted to the crushing and lacerating of the
brain.
3. There was specific instruction given by Reyes to
Santiago to follow the route prescribed by the
Public Service Commission. In his case, it was
within the Manila suburbs.
4. Trinidad de Los Reyes vda de Santiago filed a claim
with the Wokrmens Compensation Commission for
death benefits.
5. The latter denied the claim on the finding that
there was nothing in the record which justified the
assumption that he was forcibly taken away from
his regular orbit of employment. He might have
been lured by his killers to get away from his
regular route, but this just shows the voluntariness
of his act.
o He disregarded not only the instruction of
his employer but also the rules and
regulations of the Public Service
Commission.
o The drivers act in deviating from the route
constituted a positive factor in bringing
about his own demise.
o Since the deceased willfully violated the
PSC rules and regulation and the
instructions of his employer, his death did
not arise out of the course of his
TIMELESS REVIEWERS B2017 | ADMINISTRATIVE LAW | DEAN SALVADOR CARLOTA |1
entitled to death benefits.
6. Associate Commisioner Nieves Baens del Rosario
dissented from the opinion of the majority. Her
dissent is anchored on the fact that the Workmens
Compensation Act creates some presumptions in
favor of the employee, thereby shifting the burden
of proof to the employer.
o Batangas Transportation case: Once it is
proved that the employee died in the
course of the employment, the legal
presumption in the contrary, is that the
claim comes within the provisions of the
compensation law. In other words, the
accident arose out of the workmens
employment.
o Another presumption is that the injury
wasnt occasioned by the willful intention
of the injured employee to bring about the
injury to himself or another.
ISSUE:
WON the death of Victoriano Santiago arose out of and
was occasioned in the course of his employment (YES)
RATIO:
The employer was not able to present evidence
to overcome the presumption that Santiagos
death occurred and was a result of his
employment.
- The death of the employee usually deprives the
dependent of his best witnessthe employee
himselfand, especially where the accident is
unwitnessed, some latitutde should be given the
claimant.
- Hence, presumptions that an unwitnessed death
arose out of employment are allowed in some
jurisdictions, where the employer provides no
contrary proof, and when last seen deceased was
working.
- Sec. 43 of the Workmens Compensation Act
establishes the following presumptions:
a. That the claim comes within the provisions
of this act
b. That sufficient notice thereof was given
c. That the injury wasnt occasioned by the
willful intention of the injured employee to
bring about the injury or death of himself
or of another
d. That the injury did not result solely from
the intoxication of the injured employee
while on duty
e. That the contents of verified medical and
surgical reports introduced in evidence by
claimants for compensation are correct
- The flaw in the reasoning (that the deceased
willfully violated that PSC rules and therefore his
death didnt arise out of his employment) of the
majority opinion of the Workmens Compensation
commission is that it violates the presumption
expressly laid down by Sec. 69 (q) of Rule 123 of
the Rules of Court: That the ordinary course of
business has been followed.
- Immediately before leaving manila, Santiago was
engaged in his employment. The presumption is
that he performed his duties legally and in
accordance with the rules and regulations.
- It was incumbent upon respondent to prove that he
did otherwise, or that he failed to comply with the
regulationsthat the deceased voluntarily went
out of his route and drove all the way to Quezon.
- The court must conclude, pursuant to the
presumptions which the employer was unable to
overturn, that he was forced by circumstances
beyond his will to go outside his ordinary route. He
died by reason of and in the course of his
employment and consequently his heirs are
entitled to receive compensation provided for by
law.
DISPOSITIVE: Decision rendered by the lower court is
hereby set aside, and respondent is ordered to pay
compensation due the heirs.
Aboitiz Shipping Corporation v. Pepito (1966)
Sanchez, J.
Plaintiff: Aboitiz Shipping Corporation
Respondent: Vivencia Ando Pepito and the minor
children
Concept: The Law-Fact Distinction
Brief Facts: Demetrio Pepito was missing from m/v P.
Aboitiz. His wife filed a claim with the DOLE for death
benefits, which the latter granted and the Workmens
Compensation Commission affirmed. Petitioner was
unable to controvert the claim of death within the time
given by law. The case involves the issue of WON
failure to controvert the death of Pepito becomes an
admission of fact of said death, which the court ruled
on the negative.
Doctrine: Non-controversion in compensation cases,
as in the case of pleadings in ordinary civil cases,
simply means admission of facts, not conclusions of
law. Mere failure to controvert the statement that
Demetrio Pepito is believed to be dead becaue he was
lost does not import an admission that the man is
actually dead, but that he was just lost or missing.
FACTS:
1. Between the night of November 30 and the early
morning of December 1, 1961, Demetrio Pepito, a
crew member of m/v P. Aboitiz, disappeared
therefrom while said vessel was on voyage.
2. On December 26, 1961, Aboitiz received a letter
from Vivencia Peptio, informing it of Pepitos
disappearance and their belief that he is already
dead.
3. On January 12, 1962, Vivencia filed with the
Regional Office 8 of DOLE, a notice and claim for
compensation, asking for death benefits and
describing the circumstances of the alleged death
of Demetrio Pepito.
4. Aboitiz received the notice of the claim on Feb 15
and on the following day, it sent to the Regional
Office the employers report of accident,
TIMELESS REVIEWERS B2017 | ADMINISTRATIVE LAW | DEAN SALVADOR CARLOTA |2
controverting the claim for compensation and
alleging that Pepito was found missing.
o Pepito disappeared while off duty and
when the vessel was near Bucase Grande
Island while the ship was in navigation on a
calm sea and good weather. We do not
know if he purposely jumped and swam
ashore.
5. On March 21, 1962, without hearing, the Regional
Administrator issued an award for death benefits,
based on the ground that the right to
compensation of the claimant has not been
controverted by respondent within the period
provided by law (14 days).
6. Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration but
was denied. On review, the Workmens
Compensation Commission affirmed the award of
benefits.
ISSUE:
WON the failure of Aboitiz to timely controvert the
claim within the period provided for by law carries with
it the admission of the fact of Pepitos death (NO)
RATIO:
Mere failure to controvert the statement that
Demetrio Pepito is believed to be dead becaue
he was lost does not import an admission that
the man is actually dead, but that he was just
lost or missing.
- The purported controversion filed on Feb 16, 1962,
was made beyond the period set forth by law,
namely 14 days from the date of accident or 10
days from knowledge thereof. It received the letter
of Vivencia informing it of the fact of Pepitos
disappearance on December 26, 1961. Clearly, it
was filed beyond the prescribed period.
- Hence, we go into the implications of the said
failure to file the controversion in time.
- The claim for compensation recites that while the
vessel was navigating, the herein deceased was
lost or reported missing. This claim was filed on
January 12, 1962 or barely 42 days after the event
took place.
- At that time, no presumption existed that Demetrio
Pepito was dead. (Under the CC, presumption
arises after 4 years). Nobody knows what
happened to him.
- Legal implicationssuch as the right to
compensationare 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, as
in the case of pleadings in ordinary civil
cases, simply means admission of facts, not
conclusions of law.
- Mere failure to controvert the statement that
Demetrio Pepito is believed to be dead
becaue he was lost does not import an
admission that the man is actually dead, but
that he was just lost or missing.
- When Aboitiz was directed to pay compensation
without inquiry into the fact and circumstances of
 death, it violated his right to due process. Hence, disappearance is well within the coverage of Art.
the award has not leg to stand on and the 391 par 3. of the CC:
court nullifies such award. Art.391. The following shall be presumed dead for
- The commission wants to downgrade the cry of all purposes, including division of estate among the
denial of due process by a reference to a certain heirs:
investigation report by Anselmo Morales, a (3) A person who has been in danger of death
constabulary sergeant, that no one knew what under other circumstances and his existence has
happened to Demetrio because he not been known for 4 years.
disappeared at midnight on a rough sea. - We vote to set aside the appealed decision and
- This doesnt prove death. At best, it confirms a direct the Workmens Compensation Commission
known factdisappearance, with the to hold a hearing to determine:
circumstance that no one knew what o WON Demetrio Pepito is alive;
happened. o WON he should be presumed dead under
Besides, this report was never brought up at the provision of Art. 391;
any hearing. o The circumstances of death if it be found or
- Under the Workmens Compensation Act, all presumed that he died; and
ex parte evidence shall be reduced to writing o Render judgment accordingly
and any party in interest shall have the
opportunity to examine and rebut the DISPOSITIVE: Decision and resolution set aside; case
sameAboitiz wasnt afforded an opportunity remanded to Workmens Compensation for rehearing.
to examine this report.
- From the time the incident happened, more than 4
years have elapsed. By this time, his

TIMELESS REVIEWERS B2017 | ADMINISTRATIVE LAW | DEAN SALVADOR CARLOTA |3