7/29/2019 [Aboitiz v. Pepito]

1/2

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW | B2015

CASES

Aboitiz Shipping Corporation v.

PepitoDecember 17, 1966

Sachez, J.

Javie

SUMMARY: Demetrio, crew member, went missing while on board a

vessel owned by Aboitiz. His wife filed for death benefits which wasgranted by the dept. of labor and affirmed by the Workmens

Compensation Commission. During the proceedings, Aboitiz did notcontrovert the fact that Demetrio was indeed missing but it

controverted the facts of the incident by alleging that Demetrio was

not its employee. Aboitiz appealed the grant of the award. The SCruled that the controversion was filed out of time but the non-

controversion cannot be deemed as an admission of death. The award

of death benefits was therefore improper at that time since death was

not yet confirmed. But since 4 yrs has already lapsed, under the CC,Demetrio can now be presumed to be dead, hence, the case was

remanded for a hearing and proper judgment.

DOCTRINE: the notice and claim for compensation simply says 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. The boat was not lost. This

opens up a number of possibilities. Because nothing is certain.

Nobody knows what has happened to him. 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, as in the

case of pleadings in ordinary civil cases, simply means admission of

facts, not conclusions of law.

FACTS:

- 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.

- Dec. 26, 1961 Aboitiz Shipping Corp received from Vivencia Pepito

a letter dated Dec. 21, stating that it is being notified that one of its

employees was reported missing while m/v P. Aboitiz was navigating.

The letter states that it is believed that Demetrio is already dead.

- Jan. 12, 1962 Vivencia filed with the Regional Office of Dept of Labor

(DoL) a notice and claim for compensation, asking for death benefits.

- Feb. 15, 1962 Aboitiz receive a copy of the complaint/claim

- Feb. 16, 1962 Aboitiz sent to the DoL its own version: Pepito

disappeared while off duty, and when the vessel was near Bucas

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

- March 21, 1962 - without hearing, the Regional Administrator issued

an award for death benefits to respondents, planted upon the ground

that the right to compensation of the claimant has not been

controverted by respondent within the period provided for by law.

The report states that Demetrio was found missing on Dec. 1,

1961.

The MR was denied and the Workmens Compensation Commission

affirmed

ISSUE: WON non-controversion of the fact that a person is missing is an

admission of the persons death NO

RATIO:

7/29/2019 [Aboitiz v. Pepito]

2/2

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW | B2015

CASES

- Aboitizs controversion (feb.16) was made beyond the periods set

forth in the law and the rules and regulations of the Workmens

Compensation Commission, namely, 14 days from the date of accident

or 10 days from knowledge thereof. According to its own report, it had

knowledge of the disappearance on Dec.1.

- Logically, the next problem we face is the scope of the non-

controversion which may be clamped upon Aboitiz.

- the notice and claim for compensation simply says 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. The boat was not lost. This opens up a

number of possibilities. Because nothing is certain. Nobody knows what

has happened to him.

- 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, as in the case of pleadings in ordinary civil cases,

simply means admission of facts, not conclusions of law.

- As applied to the case before us, the mere failure to controvert the

statement that Demetrio Pepito is believed to be dead or deceased

because he was lost or was reported missing, does not import an

admission that the man is actually dead, but that he was just lost or

missing.

- therefore, Aboitizs non-controversion admits but the fact that

Demetrio Pepito was lost or missing, but certainly is not an admission

of the actual fact of death.

- Requiring Aboitiz to pay for death benefits violates its right to due

process. The Commission, to justify the award, refers to an

investigation report made 42 days after the incident by one Morales, a

constabulary agent to the effect that no one knew what happened to

Demetrio Pepito because he disappeared at midnight on a rough sea

(big waves). But this report does not prove death, it just confirms the

fact of disappearance. Moreover, it was not presented in any hearing,

hence, it is a mere hearsay.

- At this point, more than 4 years has already elapsed, hence, the

disappearance could come within the coverage of art. 391, of CC: ART.

391. The following shall be presumed dead for all purposes, including

the division of estate among the heirs: (3) A person who has been in

danger of death under other circumstances and his existence has not

been known for four years. Hence, the records of the case are returned

to the Workmens Compensation Commission for it to hold a hearing

and render judgment accordingly.